The tone here is much more patronizing than required.
> We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only?
Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. A damn break is deadly, a nuclear meltdown is potentially significantly way worse.
> Such a way to waste my Sunday.
Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it, regardless of the risk of finding it. We used to be quite content with dumping regular trash into holes, until we realized that didn’t scale either.
> Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?
Windmill vs nuclear powerplant space is not a 1:1 comparison. Windmill fields are very sparse, and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries. You cans just change an entire miles worth of drainage and soil without damaging the area around it.
Additionally, I said nothing about windmills. I said solar. We have millions of rooftops across the nation that have no solar yet would benefit. That land is free as far as space is concerned; it’s unused.
> Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable.
I'm glad to know climate change will be a solved problem for my children.
> Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it
Why? Is just dropping it in the atmosphere better?
> and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses.
Not really. There are safety margins, noise regulations, concrete platforms, electrical connections, ...
> Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries
They don't remove the foundations either when windmills are done.
> I said solar.
So the energy for which you would require dozens of millions of square mils of surface, a cleaning system to prevent them to lose 30% of their efficiency in a year, whose construction process is incredibly polluant, and that doesn't work for half a year in half of the world? That sounds like a great large-scale solution.
>Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks
As opposed to continuing to emit carbon? this mischaracterisation of the threat is dangerous. The climate is changing right now. We literally cannot afford to bicker and wait for an indeterminate point in the future when entire grids will run on wind, solar and batteries.
We have a solution now. That solution is nuclear power and will buy us time to transition to a fully renewable grid.
> We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only?
Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. A damn break is deadly, a nuclear meltdown is potentially significantly way worse.
> Such a way to waste my Sunday.
Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it, regardless of the risk of finding it. We used to be quite content with dumping regular trash into holes, until we realized that didn’t scale either.
> Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?
Windmill vs nuclear powerplant space is not a 1:1 comparison. Windmill fields are very sparse, and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses. Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries. You cans just change an entire miles worth of drainage and soil without damaging the area around it.
Additionally, I said nothing about windmills. I said solar. We have millions of rooftops across the nation that have no solar yet would benefit. That land is free as far as space is concerned; it’s unused.