> There is more than 100 year of uranium left

..with the current fleet. Renewables added about a quarter of that last year to surpass it by about 10%, and within a few years will be adding that much every year. You'd need to mine well over half of it just for a first load to replace 100% of existing electricity (then you'd have 6 years left to get the rest to refuel), then there's the rest of primary energy.

> and thousands of years of fuel left with fast breeders reactors

There are no and have never been any breeder reactors that run a full load of fuel in breeding mode and come back with more. If you believe in them then stop pushing PWRs and give the billions to terrapower or whichever breeder you're backing.

> Of anything, you blame nuclear for the mining,

Yes, because it is worse. Worse than gas. Worse than anything except coal (and if you look at Church Hill and the various other disasters that's even questionable).

> 1t of nuclear, is 1TWh

60,000t of U gets mined annually. You are trying to claim that nuclear reactors produce 200% of global electricity. Please make your lies believable or at least interesting

1t of Natural Uranium (from 3000t of ore at present, or 10,000t if you expand it) is <0.005TWh in the current fleet, maybe 0.01TWh with all new reactors.

Consider Olympic Dam. It's primarily a copper mine but is also one of the largest Uranium mines in the world (and is much higher concentration than any of the big mines outside Canada) and also produces a little silver as a byproduct.

1t of ore has 0.6kg of Uranium and 5g of silver depending on year -- which is the most destructive and most limiting resource in solar.

The 5g of silver can produce roughly 1 modern ~500W PERC panel (2 with existing technology that is being rolled out and 12 if tandem cells can be brought down in price to mass production levels) or 100-150W net for 30 years or about 2.5-4 kW-years including degradation. You still have it at the end.

The 0.6kg of Natural Uranium becomes about 50-80g of fuel depending on reactor and produces 3-5kW years of power (or down to half that if the load fluctuates too much). You need to babysit it for a decade at the end and then find a way to dispose of it.

The ore required to expand the nuclear fleet is <15% as dense as olympic dam. Mining it to meet 2030 goals will require mining a greater volume of ore than the entire iron industry and require nearly doubling world sulfuric acid production. Some mines can use ISL, but that requires even more sulfuric acid and mostly just skips the step where you pretend you're not pouring the heavy metal filled tailings into the groundwater.

Also by the time a PWR is built, odds are that metallization improvements and tandem cells will have reduced the silver requirements of the solar cells to less than what the nuclear reactor requires (it is 5-10x now, with proven tech to bring it down to 2-5x being rolled out and a tech that has passed endurance tests but doesn't have a complete pathway to commercialisation to bring it to 0.5-1x). So you haven't really reduced that any.

Wind is similar. Enercon's turbines use a small amount of copper (far less than a NPP), and some zinc but otherwise all abundant materials. They barely use more steel (regular not stainless so no chromium) than a NPP and it is all recyclable (rather than half ending up in a LLW containment area). They use a lot more concrete (about triple) -- this is far less destructive than the Uranium mining and is also going down per watt. They use a great deal of Aluminum and glass, but this is largely embodied energy (and both can be mostly-dispatchable loads), and some hydrocarbons (but negligible compared to all the fossil fuels in the 0.01% concentration uranium mine).

The NPP also needs significant (probably world-limited) amounts of indium and chromium. The enrichment facilities are all top secret so noone can check how many rare earth magnets they use or how much CFCs they emit and how much needs to be made out of exotic materials that are both strong and resistant to UF6 or other fluorides.

Nuclear is a decent tool that is worth the downsides for the few countries without good resources for at least two of wind, hydro and solar (so mostly just Poland). For the rest, either demonstrate a cheap, reliable breeder in exchange for the hundreds of billions or trillions that have been spent, or stop trying to sabotage the one solution that can demonstrably solve at least part of the problem and let nuclear keep adding the 2% share which is the most it can really provide of world primary energy.