It's not even the waste, that we still need to learn how to recycle. Or the apparent incapacity of any operator to reliably follow the theoretical safety guidelines...

If we put all our effort into a nuclear boom today, the plants will only arrive a decade or two after the planet has been cooked, it won't be enough to replace anything, and we will have to learn entire new ways to mine the fuel in a few decades before the stuff we can get easily is gone.

Meanwhile we are about half-way done with renewables, and the nuclear fans keep denying that...

Forget it, i tried that argument a bunch of times. Also, you are depended on other countries, big plants are an easy target for a drone with some explosives, cost of nuclear is rising while all others are down, etc. People want to believe in a magic, water heating rock

I can see why people have been scared by the waste, but it's really not a concern. There are long term storage solutions, but they just haven't been implemented in many places. Kyle Hill actually just did a video on one the other day.

The waste just isn't a big enough concern to have put the resources into long term storage yet. The radiation level around the casks is so low that you can be around them and hug them without concern. Flying in a plane is more concerning. This argument is mostly fear mongering so we don't phase out dirty energy. We could have thousands of reactors running, but they've made us scared of the solution so we don't replace them.

Doesn't Sweden or someplace have a giant abandoned salt mine to store a thousand years of nuclear waste somewhere?

Not that I'm in favor of building nuclear anymore, we should've done that in the sixties.

Yes, but you need something with turbines to regulate power flow during off-peak. Hydropower can do that in some places, but not everywhere. That's the gap that nuclear should be aiming for (replace coal plants as minimum power regulator)

The fossil fuel industry wants this because they can still sell their crap for the next 30 years. Renewables are too fast and too cheap.

Storage ain't here yet, and there is uranium in Europe ready to be mined. In my opinion, why not both?

It's not economical, but profitable.

The revenue goes to the companies while the cost is paid for by the tax payers.

For anyone who didn't see the reports, I believe this is what is being referenced.

*spicy emissions

You know that nuclear fussion is not there yet and will probably not be there yet in about a century? In the 1980 they said we will be there in the 1990. In the 1990 they said it will in the 2000... and in 2026 they say it is possible but not with the materials we currently have so let's see in about 10 or 20 years again. And than they will need once again another 10-20 years and again and again... guess what even if by some sort of miracle they succeded tomorrow. It would be already to late to create the infrastructrure and keep the plants running to have an impact on climate change.