What do you mean? Don't you think transitioning to mostly renewables while coal and gas go down are good things?
Nuclear is affordable, efficient and proven. Abandoning it instead of promoting it was a dumb, conservative move that hurt everyone involved. Except Russian billionaires, of course.
Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.
They already had it and it was working just fine. They tore it down and went full coal and some gas. Now wind and solar are taking over slowly, but it's been years with more pollution and more radiation than any already working nuclear plant would have emmited.
That's true. The original plans for phasing out nuclear energy encompassed huge investments in renewable energy. The government Merkel II then decided to keep using nuclear and not invest in renewables, then decided a year later to leave nuclear again without investing in renewables. That little maneuver not only cost huge amounts of compensation for the big energy companies but also nuked (haha) the German wind and solar industry to the ground.
Or Germany could have just avoided the whole mess and kept the nuclear.
The old reactors could have been used until their end of life, yes. The effects are exaggerated though. Nobody was going to build new ones. Not even France who rely heavily on nuclear energy has new reactors.
this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry. In other countries with no nuclear infrastructure, renewables are definitely the better, cheaper, more scalable choice - but countries which invested big many decades ago are in a different position, and Germany's deliberate destruction of their nuclear capabilities has left them dependant on fossil fuels from an adversarial state - easily a worse situation than small amounts of carefully managed nuclear waste while renewables were scaled up.
this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry.
Shhh... anti-nuclear don't want to hear this. They'd rather project, even though people are talking about how stupid closing down the current nuclear infrastructure and not advocating to build new ones!
I don't support building new nuclear power plants, but it's ridiculous to close down already existing ones given the threat of climate change. NPP should act more like stop gap until renewable energy can take over more effectively.
I answered a very similar comment a little further down:
I'm not claiming it was smart to leave nuclear before coal. It wasn't. But it is what happened and it was decided two decades ago. Nuclear is done in Germany and there is no point discussing it further. New reactors were not going to happen either way.
Por que no los dos?
(en Alemans, por supuesto)
Nuclear is only expensive and slow if you're building reactors from 1960-s. Modern micro- and nano-reactors can be put in every yard in a matter of months if not weeks.
I don't understand, you think we can build miniature nuclear plants for every single house in weeks?
I wish you were right, but you are not. Those reactors don't exist.
Except they do exist. Almost. First SMRs were scheduled to be deployed right about, but the pandemic fucked it up. The project is back on track though.
MNR study was finished in 2019, right before the pandemic. Feasibility was also finished during the pandemic and the development grants were awarded.
Nano-reactors are still a future, sadly, but if the investments will keep up it won't be long.
It won't have been long for a long time now. It's not a feasible concept to rely on a maybe. We need massive amounts of clean energy now and the way to do that now is water, wind and solar. If these wonder reactors are one day reality that's great.
The problem is that instead of investing into dumb renewables, we should've invested in nuclear decades ago. Now we have to play catch up.
France is a good example. They invest billions in their nuclear power. Still, their infrastructure is old and they can't seem to build new reactors. It's a money sink while "dumb renewables" are the cheapest most spammable energy source we ever had.
That wasn't my question
The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.
The idiots on here apparently also think that burning coal somehow doesn’t create waste that will last for longer than humanity has existed.
Nobody brings up coal but nuclear stans and bots. You definitely put your favorite straw man to work.
Germany could have eliminated coal a decade or more ago. That's an important point to bring up.
I agree it's too late now for nuclear to make sense, but that was a lost decade of coal emissions.
It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.
You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.
There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.
The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That's the whole problem.
2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it.
Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.
"Nuh uh!"
Okay whatever lol. Deny reality all you want. More nuclear = less coal, it's very simple math. Anyone not blinded by "scary nuclear!" can see it.
Nuclear just means massive potential radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.
Also, more importantly, there isn't even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets's just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.
You know what word I didn't see at all in your response? Coal. Funny about that.
Bummer, your straw man didn’t work.
Compared to renewables, nuclear creates pretty much zero waste. The whole story of nuclear energy created less waste than one year of waste from solar panels alone.
What is the toxicity and half life / storage requirements for each waste type?
Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space. Overall, it is much cheaper to safely dispose of the nuclear waste then waste from solar power.
Note: radiation is not toxicity.
Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot
Toxicity I believe is about equal.
I generally try to respect other peoples religion but yours is a threat to the ecosphere. I believe you know your statement is bullshit.
Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements
People opposed to nuclear know this already but why do you think that is?
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn't at the moment).
Note: radiation is not toxicity.
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including 'forever chemicals'.
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you're just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be "physical toxicity"?!
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including 'forever chemicals'.
If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner (as in from smaller dose) from chemical poisoning than radiation damage (uranium is also chemically toxic). People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to greatly over exaggerate its dangers.
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?
Since they don't have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you're just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt generated than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation.
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be:
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!
Maybe, just maybe, you should have read the Wikipedia article you linked. Not only did I lift that sentence from there it also explains physical toxicity. Sometimes you should read past the headline.
( Skipping the rest of the BS and jumping to the grand finale.)
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Oh, so you got your PHD from Youtube University^tm^ - I didn't know that! My bad, you win!
JK, I like to get my info from different sources including but not limited to actual professors of physics (e.g. Harald Lesch) and they don't agree with mister Youtube dude.
Finally we reached the stage of you throwing shit on the wall in the hope something sticks.
arxiv.org 1810.02865
Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I'm sure their employer/customer was happy.
Assuming you did some research on this (who am I kidding though) you should have found at per each article you find that claims storage is safe you'll find at least 2 incidents disproving that. If you'll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you'll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
I could drown you with links & articles of better scientific provenience but since that would be pointless I'd like to point out another fact to consider that doesn't get discussed enough:
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years. That seems a lot and would buy us and a couple of future generations time. Until you factor in Germany and others stopping all efforts to implement renewables, emerging countries doing the same and also the rising demand for electricity which is estimated to drive up current nuclear energy consumption by 20. Suddenly that lengthy period of 230 years is gone..
Fission and fossile both rely on finite consumables. All energy providers have pollution associated with them. Out of these however only renewable get their energy from the sun which is good for another couple of billion years. So the only option is to go all in on renewables.
Yes, at the very least Germany should have started decades ago but Germans decided they'd like a conservative Government for most of the past 40 years.
Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I'm sure their employer/customer was happy.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.
If you'll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you'll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don't want to start another long discussion.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don't bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.
..
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
No, it's just a couple of statistics. It's better than the other piece but that's a low bar.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
...
did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn't bring anything to the table.
Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
Straw man again, really?
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
I'm only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn't work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Straw man again, really?
Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can't even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.
Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.
Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.
Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?
What do you mean? Don't you think transitioning to mostly renewables while coal and gas go down are good things?
Nuclear is affordable, efficient and proven. Abandoning it instead of promoting it was a dumb, conservative move that hurt everyone involved. Except Russian billionaires, of course.
Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build. Wind and solar are much, much cheaper and quicker.
They already had it and it was working just fine. They tore it down and went full coal and some gas. Now wind and solar are taking over slowly, but it's been years with more pollution and more radiation than any already working nuclear plant would have emmited.
That's true. The original plans for phasing out nuclear energy encompassed huge investments in renewable energy. The government Merkel II then decided to keep using nuclear and not invest in renewables, then decided a year later to leave nuclear again without investing in renewables. That little maneuver not only cost huge amounts of compensation for the big energy companies but also nuked (haha) the German wind and solar industry to the ground.
Or Germany could have just avoided the whole mess and kept the nuclear.
The old reactors could have been used until their end of life, yes. The effects are exaggerated though. Nobody was going to build new ones. Not even France who rely heavily on nuclear energy has new reactors.
this ignores the key issue that in Germany, there was already an extensive and perfectly functional nuclear industry. In other countries with no nuclear infrastructure, renewables are definitely the better, cheaper, more scalable choice - but countries which invested big many decades ago are in a different position, and Germany's deliberate destruction of their nuclear capabilities has left them dependant on fossil fuels from an adversarial state - easily a worse situation than small amounts of carefully managed nuclear waste while renewables were scaled up.
Shhh... anti-nuclear don't want to hear this. They'd rather project, even though people are talking about how stupid closing down the current nuclear infrastructure and not advocating to build new ones!
I don't support building new nuclear power plants, but it's ridiculous to close down already existing ones given the threat of climate change. NPP should act more like stop gap until renewable energy can take over more effectively.
I answered a very similar comment a little further down:
https://feddit.de/comment/9599367
I'm not claiming it was smart to leave nuclear before coal. It wasn't. But it is what happened and it was decided two decades ago. Nuclear is done in Germany and there is no point discussing it further. New reactors were not going to happen either way.
Por que no los dos?
(en Alemans, por supuesto)
Nuclear is only expensive and slow if you're building reactors from 1960-s. Modern micro- and nano-reactors can be put in every yard in a matter of months if not weeks.
I don't understand, you think we can build miniature nuclear plants for every single house in weeks?
My man probably played too much Fallout.
More details here, with proof links, etc https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519
Where have they been built?
https://lemmy.world/comment/9744519
I wish you were right, but you are not. Those reactors don't exist.
Except they do exist. Almost. First SMRs were scheduled to be deployed right about, but the pandemic fucked it up. The project is back on track though.
MNR study was finished in 2019, right before the pandemic. Feasibility was also finished during the pandemic and the development grants were awarded.
Nano-reactors are still a future, sadly, but if the investments will keep up it won't be long.
It won't have been long for a long time now. It's not a feasible concept to rely on a maybe. We need massive amounts of clean energy now and the way to do that now is water, wind and solar. If these wonder reactors are one day reality that's great.
The problem is that instead of investing into dumb renewables, we should've invested in nuclear decades ago. Now we have to play catch up.
France is a good example. They invest billions in their nuclear power. Still, their infrastructure is old and they can't seem to build new reactors. It's a money sink while "dumb renewables" are the cheapest most spammable energy source we ever had.
That wasn't my question
The idiots on here firmly believe that nuclear creates zero waste. In their deranged head there is no nuclear waste that will last for longer than humanity existed.
All coal from the Earth has a radioactive component to it. Burning coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear reactor ever does. Fly ash from coal fired power plants contains 100 times more radiation than nuclear power plants emit.
The idiots on here apparently also think that burning coal somehow doesn’t create waste that will last for longer than humanity has existed.
Nobody brings up coal but nuclear stans and bots. You definitely put your favorite straw man to work.
Germany could have eliminated coal a decade or more ago. That's an important point to bring up.
I agree it's too late now for nuclear to make sense, but that was a lost decade of coal emissions.
It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.
You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.
There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.
The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That's the whole problem.
2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.
"Nuh uh!"
Okay whatever lol. Deny reality all you want. More nuclear = less coal, it's very simple math. Anyone not blinded by "scary nuclear!" can see it.
Nuclear just means massive
potentialradioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.Also, more importantly, there isn't even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets's just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.
You know what word I didn't see at all in your response? Coal. Funny about that.
Bummer, your straw man didn’t work.
Compared to renewables, nuclear creates pretty much zero waste. The whole story of nuclear energy created less waste than one year of waste from solar panels alone.
What is the toxicity and half life / storage requirements for each waste type?
Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space. Overall, it is much cheaper to safely dispose of the nuclear waste then waste from solar power.
Note: radiation is not toxicity.
Thanks for this picture-perfect post of a nuke-stan / nuke-bot
I generally try to respect other peoples religion but yours is a threat to the ecosphere. I believe you know your statement is bullshit.
People opposed to nuclear know this already but why do you think that is?
Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.
Humanity is about 300.000 years old, the Pyramids of Gizeh were build about 4600 years ago, the Vandals sacked Rome 1569 years ago, WW2 ended about 80 years ago. Now compare the those times with the time radioactive waste needs to be safely stored (and it definitely isn't at the moment).
FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.
To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including 'forever chemicals'.
Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you're just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.
Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be "physical toxicity"?!
If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner (as in from smaller dose) from chemical poisoning than radiation damage (uranium is also chemically toxic). People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to greatly over exaggerate its dangers.
For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?
Since they don't have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?
Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt generated than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation.
Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4aUODXeAM-k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Maybe, just maybe, you should have read the Wikipedia article you linked. Not only did I lift that sentence from there it also explains physical toxicity. Sometimes you should read past the headline.
( Skipping the rest of the BS and jumping to the grand finale.)
Oh, so you got your PHD from Youtube University^tm^ - I didn't know that! My bad, you win!
JK, I like to get my info from different sources including but not limited to actual professors of physics (e.g. Harald Lesch) and they don't agree with mister Youtube dude.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4aUODXeAM-k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Oh no, a professor of astrophysics disagrees. Oh the humanity.
If YouTube is too peasant for you, you can read peer reviewed articles:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.02865
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/84/8/2286/20752/Natural-fission-reactors-of-Oklo
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7804
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603
Finally we reached the stage of you throwing shit on the wall in the hope something sticks.
Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I'm sure their employer/customer was happy.
Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.
Safe? No, it isn't.
This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
Assuming you did some research on this (who am I kidding though) you should have found at per each article you find that claims storage is safe you'll find at least 2 incidents disproving that. If you'll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you'll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
I could drown you with links & articles of better scientific provenience but since that would be pointless I'd like to point out another fact to consider that doesn't get discussed enough:
At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years. That seems a lot and would buy us and a couple of future generations time. Until you factor in Germany and others stopping all efforts to implement renewables, emerging countries doing the same and also the rising demand for electricity which is estimated to drive up current nuclear energy consumption by 20. Suddenly that lengthy period of 230 years is gone..
Fission and fossile both rely on finite consumables. All energy providers have pollution associated with them. Out of these however only renewable get their energy from the sun which is good for another couple of billion years. So the only option is to go all in on renewables.
Yes, at the very least Germany should have started decades ago but Germans decided they'd like a conservative Government for most of the past 40 years.
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.
Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don't want to start another long discussion.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don't bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.
No, it's just a couple of statistics. It's better than the other piece but that's a low bar.
Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn't bring anything to the table.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?
Straw man again, really?
I'm only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.
No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn't work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.
Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can't even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.
Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.
Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.
Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?