To be fair, I think you could make an argument for why NOT nuclear using this (i.e. to release any energy from the incredibly volatile fuel source is to increase the risk of releasing all of the energy from the incredibly volatile fuel source)
This is only part of the equation.
Nuclear is significantly dense, true, but how does that translate to actual energy capture? I believe that graph would be more compelling. All the fuels have some inefficiency, as well as other baggage. Maybe add those graphs as well?
I mean so long as TRAINED PROFESIONALS are in control of maintaining nuclear energy and always have backup plans of some kind I'm all for the chance of infinite energy that reduces Co2 gas rates.
Comments
tl;dr but big energy means big boom
then again atomic kitties would be p sick
Nuclear is significantly dense, true, but how does that translate to actual energy capture? I believe that graph would be more compelling. All the fuels have some inefficiency, as well as other baggage. Maybe add those graphs as well?