[bayesian_horse]

Yes, I actually prefer to keep the nuclear stuff in a limited number of places. That makes supervision a lot easier, and stealing nuclear material a lot harder. Much more, I prefer not adding to the nuclear waste we already don't know how to deal with.

Fossil energy is preferable to nuclear, and the volatility of wind or solar energy is much less of a problem than people think. Especially with newer technologies to even out the supply.

[hutzlibu]

"we already don't know how to deal with"

Yes we do. We store it, until we can use it. And even if we can never use it, which is very unlikely, in the core of the earth is already much, much more radioactive material, so adding a tiny bit to that, is not a big problem "as people think".

And as far as I know, there is a great deal of work to be done to upgrade the power grid, for 100% wind/solar. And much more needed storage capacity, than we currently have. And storing electricity is expensive, no matter how we do it. And unless there is really abundance of solar energy from the deserts for example, this is a real problem, since we still live in a money based economy, last time I checked.

And even if we have abundance of solar desert power ... that makes you also very dependent on it, and vulnerable to a attack on those lines for example, which is why I see small nuclear reactors even in that scenario helpful, for emergency backup.

[bayesian_horse]

And yet, solar and wind energy is on the rise, nuclear isn't.

The radioactive earth core isn't in my backyard, luckily. With nuclear waste, however, it is often stored close to the reactors, with obvious problems, of which limited space isn't the only one.

Somehow a large number of scientists do believe that nuclear waste storage is a really tough problem, and I haven't yet heard from a reliable source that it isn't. Storage facilities have been leaking and collapsing all the time.