[cyrilllllll]

In the same way that windows is not bug-free, nuclear plants are not safe, at all. And they will never be.

Without considering accidents, for only 50 years of comfort, we have shamefully produced deadly waste, that future generations will have to keep confined at all costs for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

Unlike CO2, uranium pollutes in the very long term, destroying all bacteria in the environment. It is high time to get up-to-date with renewable sources of energy.

[cesnja]

The very basic point you're using here might be incorrect [1]. The difference is that all the nuclear radioactive waste is concentrated while the things coming out of coal plants are significantly diluted and mixed with local air. Therefore I think nuclear is better than coal plants even in the short term.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

[lexpar]

You say "without considering accidents", but I'd argue that accidents are usually negligible to begin with. Yes there were the "big" incidents early in the history of nuclear power, but besides being huge public relation disasters, these disasters are not so "big" compared to other energy production accidents (e.g. offshore drilling, mining, etc).

Yes 100% solar/wind would be virtually accident free, but if you argue this point too hard you let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

I always like to point out to people (it often surprises them) that the province of Ontario gets more than half of its energy from nuclear plants [1]. How often do you hear about horrible accidents in Ontario? Not so often - there hasn't been a major clean up required since the mid 90s. And these are facilities built in the 60s! Anecdotal, but this is the sort of "quiet evidence" of nuclear safety that is easy to ignore.

[1] https://www.ontario.ca/document/2017-long-term-energy-plan-d...

[arnoooooo]

Also, climate change promises a lot of trouble, I'm not sure we want so many nuclear power plants lying around.