this is a subject that the USA gov and China even agree on. It is such a shame westerners have such a negative reaction to nuclear energy. but it isn't as profitable as fossil fuels/selling new electric cars so :meow-shining:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1227103.shtml
The amount of easily mine-able uranium is limited. It's not like we could replace all fossil fuels with fission.
we have enough easily minable uranium for the next 200 years circa 2009, and with more efficient usage and thorium, experts do not see available uranium as a major limiting factor
I'm sorry, but you just need to Google "peak uranium" to see otherwise. It's not like there's a big pile of uranium waiting to be picked up. There are limitations and difficulties in getting uranium in time for use.
I hope that thorium fission works. But so far there are no civilian reactors using the technology.
idk this article seems to disagree https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
This article doesn't say anything about scaling up uranium mining, which is what you're trying to do. Getting uranium is like getting oil: humans typically get the cheaper and easier deposits first. Later on, we're into shale oil.
There's an endless supply of articles if you Google "peak uranium", which you seemed to bother not to do. Gosh, look at American uranium production
well I'm advocating for a shift away from fossil fuels , so of course mining would scale up lol
And I don't know how else I can tell you that isn't feasible. I'm not even a nuclear skeptic. But fission (so far) isn't a simple panacea.
The science will save us argument is neoliberalism. Sadly I think that it distracts from the urgent need to overthrow the capitalist class.