The whole argument is comparing Germany’s emissions to countries with nuclear- and renewable-based grids and you completely sidestepped it
OK, continue to not acknowledge the fact that Germany needed to increase fossil fuel burning because your safe darling French nuclear reactors have to be shut down all the time in hot summers. You’re so full of lies. Handpicking data points, usually without even backing them up, and then spin up a tale of how there is one singular evil in Europe now nuclear is so eco friendly.
What cherry picking? Carbon intensity takes that into account, it’s normalised data. And the environmental impact includes Fukushima and Chernobyl. It is the most generalised data possible, unlike yours.
But if you do want to cherry pick Fukushima and Chernobyl, which of course are the only things you can cherry pick, since they are very literally the only disasters in 80 years of nuclear power with environmental impact, you should compare them to disasters caused by fossil fuel. If you don’t want to be accused of being biased, that is. The Exxon Valdez alone devastated sea life and ecosystems in an area of 2000 km of coastline (20x times larger than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined!). But then there’s also the Deepwater Horizon spill, and dozens of others more. And that’s just oil spills. Oil, coal and natural gas have their fair share of disasters too. And that’s without counting climate change exacerbated wildfires, hurricanes, and other “natural” disasters. Fossil fuels are in a whole nother level of environmental destruction compared to the other energy sources.
OK, continue to not acknowledge the fact that Germany needed to increase fossil fuel burning because your safe darling French nuclear reactors have to be shut down all the time in hot summers. You’re so full of lies. Handpicking data points, usually without even backing them up, and then spin up a tale of how there is one singular evil in Europe now nuclear is so eco friendly.
Nuclear waste is safe, got it. No problems at all storing it for the next 100,000,000 years. Just pour it onto a football field and be done. Perhaps volunteer your backyard for that (bet you won’t!). Soil didn’t need to get removed from sites Chernobyl because it’s so insanely dangerous. No, just fake news. Nuclear is safe. The entire ecosystem in Chernobyl and Fukushima wasn’t harmed for generations, because when we look at the data and see that Chernobyl workers wore nuclear hazard suits and therefore relatively few died proves how “demonstrably false” reports like https://theconversation.com/at-chernobyl-and-fukushima-radioactivity-has-seriously-harmed-wildlife-57030 and https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/ are.
What cherry picking? Carbon intensity takes that into account, it’s normalised data. And the environmental impact includes Fukushima and Chernobyl. It is the most generalised data possible, unlike yours.
But if you do want to cherry pick Fukushima and Chernobyl, which of course are the only things you can cherry pick, since they are very literally the only disasters in 80 years of nuclear power with environmental impact, you should compare them to disasters caused by fossil fuel. If you don’t want to be accused of being biased, that is. The Exxon Valdez alone devastated sea life and ecosystems in an area of 2000 km of coastline (20x times larger than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined!). But then there’s also the Deepwater Horizon spill, and dozens of others more. And that’s just oil spills. Oil, coal and natural gas have their fair share of disasters too. And that’s without counting climate change exacerbated wildfires, hurricanes, and other “natural” disasters. Fossil fuels are in a whole nother level of environmental destruction compared to the other energy sources.
And I would have absolutely zero qualms about storing HLW casks in my backyard, so long as I was paid for having less space to grow my peppers and tomatoes. Kyle Hill has an easily digestible video about this, if you’re interested.