mortality rate in deaths per thousand terawatt hour
if you disagree with OP, do some research and understand that you have been propogandized
I am 100% supportive of nuclear and still disagree with OP. Not supporting nuclear does NOT automatically mean you are not an environmentalist. That is just beyond stupid to me.
i agree. i think there’s a big distinction between “not supporting” and being anti-nuclear energy, which is what OP actually said.
I disagree. I think it’s a small, nitpicky distinction. OP made his meaning clear.
From your link:
How many lives were lost in these accidents?
So they are just looking at deaths from nuclear accidents, and not construction or mining? You would have to do the same for the others. What kind of wind and solar “accidents” are there (excluding construction and mining)? Was the sun or wind too powerful one day?
You’re going to have to do better than that. Nuclear plants are guarded by barbed wire and guys with guns. Wind turbines are guarded by sheep. The solar panels on your roof are guarded by squirrels and crows. It’s pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
You’re going to have to do better than that.
No I’m not. You are moving the goalposts. The source of the article I linked specifically speaks to mortalities from accidents and air pollution. Asking that statistic to do overtime and somehow speak to mining fatalities is whataboutism and totally ignores that coal mining has exactly the same problem. Mining fatalities are significant and not to be ignored, but to cite them as a reason to prefer coal over uranium is foolish.
It’s pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
Self-reporting that you didn’t even read the article lol. The cited graphic clearly indicates that more than 4x as many individuals have died from rooftop solar accidents, such as electricution and falls than have died from nuclear power, per unit of energy. Statistics like “look who is guarding the power source” are obscenely unfit to describe the situation in comparison to raw numbers of human deaths.
4x as many individuals have died from rooftop solar accidents, such as electricution and falls
Those are from installation and construction. Your statistic doesn’t include construction deaths for nuclear plants. So the metric is biased. People fall doing any type of construction, including nuclear plants and solar panels.
Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The “construction team” adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.
You can’t prove your point with flawed metrics, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Nuclear plants are expensive and require constant maintenance. Solar panels are literally mounted on top of elementary schools. They’re cheap and easy to put up and take down. Wind turbines need a little more maintenance and construction but they are also simple compared to nuclear plants. These are facts.
lol your meth comment made me lose all interest in this conversation. that was gross. im blocking you and standing by my words until someone who can actually cite a stat in good faith comes through, because i have based all my arguments off the best reasearch i can find and you have provided nothing but baseless assertions. take care ❤️
For other people reading this: yes, roofers take meth. I don’t advocate doing roofing work on meth (or meth in general), but they do it. It’s reality.
Reality is more than just numbers on a page. If anyone has fatality stats for different energy generation methods that stand up to mild scrutiny, please post them.
Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The “construction team” adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.
Even if every construction worker was hopped up on whatever you can imagine, it wouldn’t even matter.
It takes 2 workers to install 10 kW in solar panels that (might) last 15 years. That’s 75 kW-years of energy per construction worker.
It takes 1200 construction workers to build a 1000 MW reactor which will operate for (at least) 50 years. That’s about 42 MW-years per construction worker, or 42000 kW-years per construction worker.
Nuclear construction could have over 500x the accident rate of rooftop solar installation and still be safer. Try again.
You linked an article about how hard it is to find nuclear plant construction workers, and you think it’s a point in their favor?
Direct employment for a single unit 1,000 MW advanced light water reactor during site preparation and construction at any point in time for 10 years is around 1,200 professional and construction staff, or about 12,000 labor years, the study shows.
You’re comparing 10 years of construction to build a nuclear plant with one day of putting up some solar panels. And you’re amazed that 10 years of work is more productive?
When you divide by the 10 years of construction you get:
Nuclear plant: (1,000,000 kW x 50 years) / (1,200 workers x 10 years) = 4,167 kW / worker
Solar panels: (10 kW x 15 years x 365 days per year) / (2 workers x 1 day) = 27,375 kW / worker
Looks like you’re completely wrong. I don’t know why you’d compare it this way, but it’s definitely more efficient to install solar panels.
That’s fair: construction workers aren’t magically able to construct more than one reactor over those 10 years. It was late at night and I also lost track of the original point of this whole thread. The study cherry-picked rooftop solar, as opposed to utility solar, in order to prove a point. Nuclear power is safe. Fossil fuels are not safe.
the other account whom i blocked is still also totally ignoring that someone has to build the solar panels. it’s not like two (apparently drugged up) roofing dudes just pull some solar cells off the solar cell tree and slap them on a roof; there’s probably hundreds to thousands of man hours going into producing those.
id look into the math against the nuclear plant example if i thought it mattered. but compare stupid numbers and ya get a stupid answers yknow?
Bro this is “Unpopular Opinion” not “Unpopular Opinion and also pretend it’s 1979”
Can’t kiss a human? Kiss nuclear waste instead!
A fair dialectical starting point for a four-year-old.
If you care about not having the environment be poisoned by nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years, then you kinda have to.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
what good things for the environment happened around chernobyl when the nuclear reactor there overheated? An area of 20 miles in any direction of the power station will be uninhabitable for at least 300 years, and potentially much longer.
Actually funny you mention that. Initially it was bad, but as time has gone on it’s arguable that the Chernobyl exclusion zone has actually helped the ecosystem in the area because humans aren’t around. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife
Also, nuclear reactors aren’t built that way anymore, and all the RBMK nuclear reactors have been fixed so they aren’t able to experience that again.
This is not a good argument against nuclear power. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is actually doing incredibly well on biodiversity metrics specifically because humans don’t go there at all. The real issues with nuclear power are how long it takes to set up, sourcing the fuel, and the fact that while containing the waste is not really that big a problem it is one that faces enormous political hurdles in many places
What about if we run only on nuclear power and we launch the residues to fly thought the outer space? Problem solved.
Actual policy experts will tell you that the reason nuclear energy died off in the US in particular and in the world at large is not because of anti-nuclear environmentalist lobbies.
It’s a financial question. What environmentalist opposition exists is neither sufficient nor necessary to explain the lack of nuclear development.
These projects get killed because they are almost hilariously expensive by any standard, including the cost per joule produced. They show NO signs of learning curves. Thorium is vaporware. SMRs have proven to be neither small nor modular. These projects get shitcanned not because oh no newcleer so skaweee. They get shitcanned because no one wants to pay for them when you can just do cheap natural gas and wind or even cheaper solar.
The hunt the nuclear fanboys go on to attack environmentalists is invented. It’s basically false consciousness. The fossil fuel industry benefits from this strife.
For what a nuclear facility costs to build, buying equivalent solar would probably get you an order of magnitude more energy production, even factoring the additional transmission capacity you’d need to buy alongside it. You could almost certainly get at least the same value out of a combination of wind, solar, transmission, and medium-term energy storage. And end up with a far more resilient grid in the process. And also not be blighting a couple square miles of riverside real estate.
Just so we’re clear, it is cheap fossil fuels that made nuclear uneconomical. Solar and wind provide a very different type of power in comparison, and do not really compete against each other. There’s a reason why countries that abandoned nuclear are suddenly thinking about restarting nuclear again (see Germany). Meanwhile, countries that fully adopted nuclear (see France) are seeing no pressure to abandon it.
It’s cheap fossil fuels that first pushed nuclear uneconomical, particularly natural gas.
But today, solar is already making those same fossil fuels increasingly uneconomical. If we transferred the >$20bil/yr that current gets sent to the already-massively-profitably fossil fuel companies instead to grid upgrades, storage, and renewable investment, that’d be pretty fucking neat. We’re already seeing rapid changes to the energy economy because of the reality of these costs. The trillion+ dollars being almost entirely directed to grid enhancements, under-served communities, and renewable energy that is the IRA is causing massive, sweeping changes to the world of energy too. Even if people on forums like these have decided they want to throw out that bill’s swimming pool of babies just because one West Virginian took a dry dump in the corner in exchange for getting it passed.
The whole “very different type of power” thing I don’t really buy. It is not a profound, cutting observation that the sun isn’t always shining. The duck curve barely even exists when you have a good mix of wind and solar for most of the world since these sources are basically fully-complementary, and we already have lots of short and medium-term energy storage technologies that can be run for profit because of how cheap solar is. The market is already creating these incentives and businesses are moving in to fill the need; the technology exists or else isn’t that hard to figure out. Overbuilding solar to the point of negative energy prices at peak production (& thus curtailment) will create huge incentives for storage. We’re already seeing this; a handful of very serious industrial heat battery firms, for example, are offering products that take advantage of these energy price fluctuations that can be build and run profitably both for them and the firms that buy them. Markets are not a solution for all problems, but they are super goddamn good at wiping out arbitrage.
I’ve seen no evidence of Germany seriously considering spinning back up their reactors. If you have a source from within the last few months implying different, I’d love to read it, but as of last fall their energy ministry was completely dismissing these ideas as baseless rumors. I’d personally prefer it if they did, though; with the things already built, a lot of the cost is already sunk, and beyond that it seems worthwhile to get coal decommissioned.
France is a more complicated story, but it’s impossible to deny they have a lot of successful nuclear capacity. But guess what they’re pursing as their key generation platform for the future? It’s solar. Because it’s way fucking cheaper. Easier for them than most thanks to their massive nuclear base, no doubt.
A lot of this dives deep into wishful thinking territory. We will need to spend trillions of dollars to make a pure renewable energy solution viable. People will find out that nuclear is not magically guaranteed to be more expensive. If it wasn’t the case, why are new nuclear reactors still being built and more are being planned?
Germany is definitely rethinking it’s anti-nuclear position. Ignore the viewpoints of the current political group in charge. They are deeply unpopular. Politicians outside of that group are advocating for a return to nuclear.
France is keeping and building more reactors. This is not a “more complicated story.” It is simple proof that nuclear is viable.
Why is my view of the state of industry with concrete, affordable renewable energy technologies that are already available for purchase and rapidly scaling up just by market forces wishful? Why isn’t your belief that nuclear will suddenly buck it’s 50+ year trend of always being extremely expensive at least as wishful?
Not all production needs to be economic, mind you. It’s fine for the state to pursue an expensive technology because it has some other benefit, and there are concrete benefits of nuclear – specifically how firm it is, to the point where it’s basically irresponsible to ever curtail it or adjust production based on grid demand. But capital isn’t infinite and these tradeoffs need to be considered very seriously. On the flip side, spend five minutes searching for what the Georgia PSC has to say about the two new AP1000s at Vogtle. They are not happy at all about the cost overruns and failures. Would the next reactor cost less? Probably… so long as it starts construction soon before those couple thousand of newly-trained workers all find new jobs and progress is lost, as usually happens. But it won’t, because no one wants to feel like the next sucker.
I’m totally pragmatic about this. It nuclear stops being ludicrously expensive, we definitely ought to pursue it. And if a new technology shows actual evidence and promise of making it more affordable, it’s worth the R&D. But at least so far, it shows no signs of doing so. It’s definitely not going to keep following the nearly Moore’s Law-like learning curve solar has been on. The french are uniquely good at building reactors because of their long history and even still they are clearly signaling in e.g., their NECP plan that renewables are the primary technology of their future. They’re pretty much the best in the world at it and they’re still plainly chasing solar because of its affordability.
This opinion is true, unpopular and truly unpolular.
I mean, you can. It’s stupid, yes but when has this ever stopped people?
I’m not personally strongly opposed, but “stupid” is kind of a dumb simplistic judgment. There are arguments for nuclear power, but there are definitely also many valid arguments against it. Key among them having to source uranium from locations on which we’d rather not be dependant.
“stupid” here stands for uninformed, succeptible to propaganda, and unwilling to examine presupposed beliefs in light of empirical evidence.
also # of arguments in favor or against something is an absolutely useless metric unless you properly weight every one of them. “we don’t know what to do with the waste which actually hasn’t killed anyone yet” does not outweigh “we are dumping the waste into the air and millions are already dying from the consequences.”
australia and canada are among the top 4 uranium producers in the world, and australia has huge reserves that we just don’t mine because we have relatively expensive labour: our uranium is a byproduct of iron and other mining operations… i’d bet you’re not talking about australia when you said “rather not be dependant”, so ramping up our production is a clear, albeit more expensive option
New Zealand says you can.
Of course you can. Because nuclear energy is NOT a solution. Especially not in the long run.
you make a weird assumption that a solution that can’t work forever won’t work as a transition strategy
OK. How much (in % of global energy production) do you think we will need from nuclear power to make it work as a “transition strategy”?
i’m sorry i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask. a % global nuclear energy production value is purely symbolic and not a goal.
the real percentage i want is 100% clean and safe energy, because the world is already basically ending. we must run headlong at eliminating fossil fuels as soon as possible, and we already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up.
the reality is, market conditions and the state of energy research will determine the actual global distribution of energy. there are probably experts out there who can estimate where those numbers are headed, but i’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask
But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.
Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?
I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn’t.)
We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up
Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don’t want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.
you are asking me to be an expert on topics i have already admitted to being not studied in. that’s not fair because i came into this conversation to defend my position that being anti-nuclear is not well suited to the environmentalist agenda. and nothing else.
i know that france has successfully achieved like 70% nuclear power production, while renewables are slowly ticking up. and i am not against that. that is good. because they aren’t using fossil fuel to get that electricity. if they had waited around for renewables research to catch up they’d still be reliant on coal and oil like the rest of us. if they were forced to shut down all nuclear plants, fossil fuels would spike to take up the slack.
that’s my position. that’s all i’m expressing. you are trying to drag the discussion somewhere else, and that’s not a winning move.
This is accurate, however we can’t sacrifice good enough for the perfect we don’t have yet. I get there is no solution that lasts longer than a temporary one, but environmentally, nuclear absolutely should be implemented.
OK. Are we on the same page, that we need to abolish fossil energy ASAP?
And: How much (in % of global energy production) should be covered by nuclear power in your opinion?
Yep. Fossil fuels need to disappear yesterday.
Your second question is way, way out of my league. All I can toss out there as a guess is enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand vs ebb and flow of natural systems like sun and wind, maybe plus a little for contingency.
Your second question is way, way out of my league
Hats off to you for being so honest and admitting this.
enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand
OK, please correct me if I haven’t understood you correctly, but you mean: “We should basically utilize natural systems energy (sun, wind, water, …) completely and turn off and on nuclear plants “on demand” to cover the peaks/gaps in demand.” Did I get that right?
Pretty much, yeah; but again, out of my league. I don’t think nuclear can be just “turned off”, but in the context of this discussion whatever the minimum output is to keep them operating, and then power up to cover whatever output is needed to cover low wind, overcast, night, etc.
I’ll offer this also - and again I have no real scientific knowledge to back it up, but possibly this could be sorted out with some digging - that I think batteries should also be used to help buffer power output swings, but I also think that the environmental impact of batteries and their manufacturing need to be balanced against the same for nuclear power. It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid vs a relative few nuclear plants.
Pretty much
OK, cool.
What you are describing is called “load following”. Different power plants have different capabilities of doing this. E.g. coal plants (or other thermal plants) are pretty bad at this while e.g. gas turbines can be turned on/off very quickly to buffer out short peaks of fluctuations. Power plants get categorized into different groups: e.g. Base Load plants or Peak Load plants. Base load is basically the load that is “always need to be supplied” and everything else is modulated on top of that.
To do effective load following, you would NOT want base load plants.
To categorize power plants we need to look at 2 different things: the technical capability to do “load following” with a plant - and the economical viability of throttling the power output of a plant.
Nuclear power plants have extremely high investment costs and a greater proportion of fixed costs (e.g. for personnel) while having very low variable costs, as nuclear plants are not really “using up more/less fuel” during their operation. That means: The cost of nuclear power plants is pretty much constant over time - no matter if they are producing more or less power, but you only get an return on invest if you output power.
That is why nuclear power plants are normally used as base load power plants, as their economic viability goes pretty bad when you do (extensive) load following with them. However, they have at least some technical capabilities of being operated in a (slower) load following mode.
When we add in the fact, that there was probably not a single nuclear power plant, yet, that was economically viable without huge subsidies and the mere costs of keeping the radioactive waste products safe FOREVER are enormous, investors/plant owners don’t really like the idea of “throttling” their plants as they will be loosing money.
That is why - if you have a great amount of base load power plants in your grid - you tend to turn off the generators that are easy to regulate but hard to calculate: Wind & Solar. That’s why a high percentage of nuclear power in your energy mix will PREVENT the utilization of true renewable energy sources, making them a less viable investment.
This is one of the reasons why I asked about the percentage of “needed nuclear power” in the beginning. Different percentages of these plants will have different effects on the entire energy production system and it’s trajectory.
So I am coming back to my original question. And there is not right or wrong answer, just a gut feeling: How much nuclear do we need to make this work? Our current energy mix (primary energy consumption) consists globally roughly of 75% fossil energy and 4% nuclear. So do you think we will need to replace the 75% fossils with nuclear by 1:1? Or maybe 1:2 and fill the rest with Wind/Solar? Or do we keep the current 4%? Really, it’s about your gut feeling about what you think will be necessary. From that point on, we can then further explore the general viability and consequences of nuclear power in the grid.
It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid
The beauty of it is: You wouldn’t really need to do this - but I’m getting ahead of myself. This a different rabbit hole that I don’t think is needed to be explored right now.
But just a short pointers:
- By controlling and deferring energy consumption in a “smart” way, you can match up the demand with the volatile supply (e.g. of Wind/Solar) pretty well.
- In energy systems, we have other types of energy storing systems that are bigger, cheaper and more reliable than the ones we know from “consumer electronics” - e.g. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
Well I think I just got jumped. You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them, particularly the environmental issues inherent in battery production and recycling, and sorta handwaved in the general direction of alternative sources like pumped-up hydro. I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that Science Will Save Us via some future solution or construction. The proverbial can keeps getting kicked down the road to do something about the issues immediately with the excuse that technology will jump in and save the day before it’s too late. People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built to meet the professed goal. Ideas are great, but if we don’t have it now it’s technically already too late.
And that segues into nuclear. It is not a perfect solution. However it is a known tech, and an effective one. Nuclear waste is at the top of the issues I though of when I mentioned it, however that issue can be somewhat ameliorated if the US gets around to reprocessing the waste which is currently hindered by a non-proliferation treaty. We can argue costs and all that about nuclear operations, but at what point do we say that the enemy of good enough is constantly looking for perfection while sitting on our hands?
Summed up: Yes, there are alternatives. Many are conceptual and have never been implemented, or at least not on a large scale. They need to be implemented yesterday and not just viewed through hopeful rose-tinted glasses. Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
Bullshit, nuclear waste is incredibly toxic.
Yeah it’s a good thing we have clean burning gas and coal
There is this crazy new trend called renewables. Also, please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels.
The guy is obviously an advertiser/influencer working for the nuclear industry. Nuclear waste is not harmless.
“Obvously…” /s
Or, when you run the numbers yourself, you realize that it’s about as dangerous as offshore wind turbines are to birds and fish. Which is to say, not very, but a lot of extremely dumb people still parrot it.
Stop pretending. It is obvious that the guy is a pro nuclear advertiser. Anyone can see that in a 5 minute google search.
Whatever you say, bud. It’s not worth the time or crayons to debate you further on this.
That also how I feel about you :)
You drank the Kool-aid and asked for seconds didn’t you?
It’s impressive to see the massive power of oil-industry-paid propaganda.
Please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels.
I never said you supported fossil fuels. Please point to the part where I said or implied such a thing.
I’m affirming that the notion that “nuclear waste is incredibly toxic” is false and it’s a propaganda piece that was inserted into popular culture by the oil industry who paid to make the idea mainstream. Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun. But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in pop culture.
Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun.
Nuclear waste contains Plutonium and that is only one of several highly toxic substances it contains. Are you seriously trying to tell me Plutonium is not extremely toxic?
But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in pop culture.
Both, the nuclear and the fossil lobby have spread disinformation systematically, you are a good example for the pro nuclear propaganda. I on the other hand reject both, fossil and nuclear because both are harmful.
There’s a qualitative difference between the fact “Plutonium is toxic“ and the propaganda piece “nuclear waste is toxic”. The first is an statement of truth about a chemical element, the second is an attempt to halt rational thinking. Nuclear waste is depleted fuel encased in concrete. You can stand next to it without any ill consequence to your health and it is not toxic. Unless you actively try to break into it, you won’t be harmed anymore than standing under the sun.
But seeing the way you reacted to some other person showing evidence, with the construction of an ugly ad-hominem attack and the equivalent of a child sticking fingers in their ears and singing. I would not be wasting any more electricity on you. You say pro-nuclear propaganda, as if both positive and negative propaganda aren’t nuances to take into account. That truth can lie at the core of propaganda, and that the best propaganda is the one that doesn’t have to lie to make its point. While still regurgitating and supporting negative propaganda based on scientific falsehoods that goes against your own self-proclaimed principles and goals.
It’s not as toxic as coal. It is only that you are used to those effects. It’s also a safer industry to work in. Technically safer even than wind and solar last I looked. I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
Agreed, that´s the compromise I would propose too.
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change, although I’ve seen some articles that it’s supposed to be faster now than the past 10 years.
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Fortunately, opposing nuclear power does not mean supporting fossil fuels.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change
Agreed, that is another good argument against nuklear.
I’m starting to believe that ecology parties are actually conservative and liberal, trrgeting the non fascists bourgeois who feel bad about the environment.
So nuclear waste / radiation does not hurt the environment?
If that were the case, we wouldn’t store it in strongly protected containers, no?
The logic does not make sense here, OP.
No, it doesn’t.
Nuclear waste won’t change any ecosystem the way that coal/oil waste induced greenhouse effect will drastically harm the planet through climate change, irreparably and irreversible forever.
A coal plant’s chimney gases are several hundred times more radioactive and harmful than a room full of nuclear waste barrels, and we just dump them into the atmosphere.
Nuclear waste doesn’t harm the environment because we store it appropriately.
