oh now I get it Max.

You know (or now know after I pointed it out) that nuclear plants emit enormous volumes of CO2 when looked at as a whole-of-life issue.

But you've created this little fantasy world where nuclear is thorough emissions free and have now convinced yourself that that fantasy world is reality. Well good luck with that.

Mhaze,
1. Nuclear power plants THEMSELVES don't emit CO2. CO2 is only emitted when combusting fossil fuels or wood or whatever, not when fissioning atoms!
2. It's the CONSTRUCTION OF nuclear power plants that emits CO2.
3. CO2 is only emitted because the nuclear power plants are constructed in a dirty energy economy.
4. When future nuclear plants are built in a future nuclear economy, where is the CO2 coming from?

Mhaze, I'm concerned. Normally your powers of comprehension and debate are better than this. Are you unwell? Overtired? Have a nice warm mug of milk and an early night, and come back tomorrow. Maybe then the lightbulb will go off.

Max,

Don't worry about me...I still live in the real world. You know, the world where all the inputs to nuclear power result in emissions. Not the fantasy world where all those emissions magically disappear due to the judicial application of unicorn powder and fairy dust.

Ah, the real world...You should join us some time.

"You know, the world where all the inputs to nuclear power result in emissions."

Yaaaay, MHaze finally grew up and admitted it!

As I said two days ago:-

> But yeah, nuclear has some low amounts of Co2.
> I already know why. Embedded energy.
> The power plants are being made in a dirty economy.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9074#299690

Good for you Mhaze! It only took 2 days, but you got there! Now all we're waiting for is for you to grow up a LITTLE bit more and admit the next bit of what I said 2 days ago.

>But as we clean up the grid and generate alternative fuels for low emissions trucking and cleaner mining methods, we'll release less CO2.

Also, if you live in the real world, then vastly lower emissions than fracking must also be a priority because in the real world climate change is a thing.

Also in the real world? France. They mass built nukes with 1970's technology and now have some of the most reliable low emissions power in Europe.

But fission itself? No. Sorry pal. Fission doesn't produce CO2. It's not combustion, but uranium particle splitting resulting in 2 slightly smaller atoms, where a tiny amount of the mass is converted into energy. The old E = MC2 kicks in, meaning that your WHOLE LIFE could be powered by 1 golf ball of uranium.

Once we HAVE a 100% nuclear grid and nuclear-powered transport system the next generation of EVERYTHING we build will be zero emissions.
By then I'm pretty sure we'll have zero emissions concrete from seaweed and / or other sources. Those industrial chemists sure can crack one thing into another!

Because you're struggling, I'll let the World Nuclear Association help you.

"Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of CO2 equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind3."

If you look at the graph here, you'll see that nuclear is 12 grams CO2 per kwh, where natural gas (fracking) is about 40 times worse at 490 grams CO2 per kwh. Coal is 820.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/nuclear-energy-and-climate-change.aspx

So while we're here I'll just correct your retarded claim that nuclear has 140g = only exaggerating 11 times hey? Why is that mHaze? ;-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9074#299671

Once again, you just shoot your retarded mouth off without even checking the BASICS at the wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Carbon_emissions

Why is that Mhaze? Why do you have such a bad case of Dunning Kruger's, and try to spank me down with your bold assertions that all turn out to be not only wrong, but at least an order of magnitude wrong? A factor of 10 or more!?

Basically, what's wrong with you that you can't even shut your mouth till you've read the basic bleeding wiki?

You still have dodged the real question Max.

How the hell does CO2 cause a drought this week, a bush fire next week & a flood the week after.

Do try to give some valid reason, none of this airy fairy bulldust, but some solid scientific explanation.

If you can't do that, please stop boring us with bulldust.

Incidentally I don't give a continental damn what is used to generate my electricity, as long as it comes at the lowest price. It will have to have some beneficial side effects, like fertalising the flora & greening the planet to win the contest.