I have to spell it out for you with grown-up words, don't I?

"Nuclear power reactors do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions
Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating. However, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate."
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php

Exactly as I said above.

The ONLY emissions come from building clean nuclear in a dirty energy economy. As nuclear starts to clean up that economy, the future emissions will vanish.

"Exactly as I said above."

Well exactly as you said above AFTER I'd pointed out that your original assertion was rather lacking in truth.

It seems to happen a lot, Max. You make some outlandish assertion, ('do the maths'), I point out it's rubbish, you then adjust your claims to something less outlandish and assert you were always right.

Look, I'm not opposed to nuclear. I'm not opposed to any form of power generation. I am opposed to undue government intervention and cherry-picking in said power generation. I'd prefer that the market determine the most efficient and cheapest power facilities whatever that may be. Right now its coal, gas and nuclear. But all suffer from government restrictions.Equally the least efficient and most expensive are so-called renewables, which luxuriate in government subsidy.

My view is get rid of the subsidies. Get rid of the restrictions. And let the market-place work it out.

That view is coloured by my knowledge that we ought not be worrying about emission levels.

Nuclear power is zero emissions and a whole lot better than fracking - period.

> I am opposed to undue government intervention and cherry-picking in said power generation.

As the climate emergency is real and governments have a duty of care to their citizens, the intervention is entirely DUE, not undue, and in fact with this particular right-wing denialist government's inattention of the last decade is entirely OVER-DUE!

Max Green,

You better watch out for these AGW/CC denialists. I hope you're aware that they are all religious nut jobs.

Opinion,

Some of us may be religious nut jobs but I note that you have nought to say to refute my claim that my belief in Christian teachings and life after death will not lead to disappointment, and I even offered a logical explanation, but you, it seems, can only offer willful unsubstantiated opinions and no logical argument.

Well, I know too many people that are religious from different traditions and faiths that:-
A/ Are quite sane
B/ Accept climate change
...so unless someone like Runner has specifically come out as a Young Earth Creationist, there's no reason to target their faith as a reason they don't accept climate science or are particularly nutty. The Catholic Church has officially accepted it as a concern, and various Protestant and even Islamic and Buddhist traditions have all accepted climate science.

I don't know why these guys can't?

Also, Runner has specified that many of the participants have attacked him for being a Christian so it's a bit too simplistic to say they are "all" religious nut jobs.

Basically, long metaphysical debates is not why I'm here.