Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained. For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1]
Also instructive to keep in mind just how energy dense nuclear fuel is. [2]
> ”Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained.”
We think of “energy invested” as having an environmental cost, and of course that’s true when it comes from polluting fossil sources.
But as grids get cleaner, and transport vehicles and construction equipment are electrified, this is no longer such a concern. Eventually we’re just using clean energy to build more clean energy - a virtuous cycle!
New low-carbon concrete formulas and steel production technology are also needed, of course, since these are a major source of emissions whether for a nuclear plant or wind farm.
> Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options.
Then, why is it not economically viable when fairly competing with solar and wind energy? Because it requires much more subsidies and nuclear developers cannot even bear the financial risks of their projects, as one would expect from a economically viable technology.
I was specifically referring to energy spent to build and operate / energy actually generated over lifetime, so called EROI. My post refers to the sources of the info
Also instructive to keep in mind just how energy dense nuclear fuel is. [2]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to...
[2] https://xkcd.com/1162/