Quote (EndlessSky @ Jun 28 2020 04:34pm)
In order to maintain them you need to expend a bunch of CO2 through helicopters, replacing blades, etc. The bird graveyard that Trump said is 100% correct. Overall though, the cost in $ per MWH is just not feasible for real life.
TL;DR Nuclear is better
As long as the CO2 from building and maintenance is less than the CO2 saved from not burning coal for the equivalent amount of energy then they are still an improvement, and will be an even greater improvement as more of the infrastructure to make them changes over to use them as a source of energy instead of fossil fuels.
Nuclear is indeed better, but all sources have their place in some way or another. No single energy source is a silver bullet to fixing climate change or providing energy.