Remove "nuclear energy" about noharm HOT 4 CLOSED

See discussion in #13

from noharm.

Nuclear Fission would reduce waste, but as of now there is tremendous waste, not to mention current incentives under capitalism to use nuclear energy at the detriment of public health.

from noharm.

Thanks for the comment @Shchvova – we do exclude fossil fuels (coal + natural gas) in 4.b of the license. The reasons nuclear has been excluded are here: #30

I haven't heard the argument before that nuclear has a smaller ecological footprint than solar and wind. Do you have peer-reviewed research you can point to that substantiates that?

from noharm.

I haven't heard the argument before that nuclear has a smaller ecological footprint than solar and wind. Do you have peer-reviewed research you can point to that substantiates that?

Not the OP but stumbled on this issue and figured I'd look it up. This peer-reviewed research is summarized in this article. Quoting from the summary, as I do not have direct access to the article:

The study finds each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh.

While the nuclear/wind show equality at this unit, visual inspection of the graphic does appear to show nuclear is lower. So I believe @Shchvova's claim of "lower" is true in both cases.

from noharm.