Not exact matches
For the first part of your question only (national security threat), from an author I don't fully agree with on Uranium and Russia (he thinks the sanctions on Russia are really about natural gas and he thinks the sanctions are foolish)- he proves that Russia is a large producer of Uranium while the US is seeing a decline in
production and imports quite a bit of Uranium for
nuclear energy production (sourced from the EIA).
We also don't know exact probabilities for delayed neutron emission or the amount of
energy released — properties that are very important for understanding the details of
energy production in
nuclear reactors.
You can only believe there is a looming catastrophe if a) you believe that man is responsible for 100 % of the CO2 increase (that is in serious doubt), b) an increase of up to 2.0 °C is not beneficial (there is much evidence that it is beneficial), c) over the next 100 years there will not be any major advances in
energy production (now we can switch to
nuclear within 10 - 20 years), and d) man can realistically
do anything to effect global temperatures (the US EPA estimates proposed CO2 restrictions costing tens of trillions of US dollars would reduce global temperature by 0.006 °C).
For one it doesn't cover
nuclear energy, though it
does count businesses involved in natural gas
production and carbon capture and storage systems for coal plants.
Note that LCOE
does not factor in transmission considerations or dispatchability (i.e. unlike unpredictable winds, the
energy production of fossil fuel and
nuclear plants can be controlled).
«What that bill
did was essentially write
nuclear and coal into U.S.
energy production for the next 10 to 20 years, instead of phasing them out,» says Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth.
The most comprehensive peer - reviewed studies
done by independent scientists evaluate air pollution, worker safety, and all of the other risks in
energy production and find that
nuclear is safer than coal, oil, natural gas, and even solar.20, 21