[_nalply]

Future mortality seems not to be considered but I am afraid this is important. Numbers will be difficult to obtain, you know, clairvoyance is not easy.

But at least we know that we need to maintain nuclear waste for a long time. Or we create deep subterranean disposal sites, and this will be dangerous work.

Coal is probably even a lot worse because of climate change effects.

Renewables seem to fare better for future mortality.

[mcjiggerlog]

I do agree that the overall risk includes more factors than just past direct/indirect deaths, you are right. However, I would argue that simply furthers the cause for nuclear.

Firstly, renewables are great and we should of course be investing heavily. However, until we have the what is still non-existing storage tecgnology, we need a base load of either nuclear or fossil fuels. Insisting on a nuclear-free energy supply right now unfortunately means insisting on fossil fuels as a base load for the foreseeable future.

Given the greatest risk to humanity's survival is climate change, failing to secure a low-carbon energy supply is a risk that far outweighs any of the risk of using nuclear alongside renewables.

We can already see the results of foregoing nuclear - energy in now nuclear-free Germany is seven times as carbon-intensive as nuclear-heavy France[1].

[1] http://energyforhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Euro...

[ksec]

I thought one of the advantage with Bill Gates solution is that their reactor uses those Nuclear Waste as fuel rather than creating more out of it.