[proctrap]

How about

- Germany trying to find a nuclear waste deposit since ages (that doesn't have to be evacuated due to ground water later on)*

- Failed nuclear plants we're deconstructing since ages and are paying millions every year to do so

- Nuclear fuel expected to be depleted in the next 100 years

- State and taxpayers always having to pay for the disasters of nuclear plants, while the gains are going to the companies

- French nuclear plants that had some interesting failures in the last years, while we can just watch and hope they're treated correctly. Meanwhile you're told "nono, everything is fine".

Theoretically nuclear power can be effective. Practically we're using corporations that want to profit and have a human factor. So no wonder it's not safe to operate in reality. The next fukushima could be at your door, with your government then also claiming the radiation to be safe, because they can't afford to keep people out of their work and houses for so long.

No nuclear company is insured for the real amount of money they'd have to pay for the next fukushima or Tschernobyl. Because there is no insurance for that amount of money.

* And USA still pouring money into a final solution for a underground storage

Also I don't give much about USA and their regulations. It's the country with stories like these: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/oil-... And oh wonder: https://truthout.org/articles/evidence-of-fracking-chemicals...

I could even suspect USA influence to prevent more solar money to china or gas/oil money to russia.

[jollybean]

"Germany trying to find a nuclear waste deposit since ages"

That's politics.

"Failed nuclear plants"

That's not quite true and doesn't have to happen.

"Nuclear fuel expected to be depleted in the next 100 years"

This is just plain wrong. Maybe 1000 years even then, we are extracting a tiny fraction of the energy. As we get better, all that 'waste' is actually 'fuel'.

Far from a bad example, France is a good example.

If France were to have built 2x the capacity instead of stopping where they did, they might have already been Carbon Neutral.

[bananabreakfast]

First you say that corporations can't be trusted, then also the government can't be trusted when they say everything is fine?

Is sounds like you just have a problem with authority.

Even with all nuclear disasters included it is still a far safer energy source (in deaths per kWh) than any other we have ever developed.

And that figure about 100 years? Wildly misleading.

The same fact is true about oil. Except we keep discovering more, and we would with uranium as well if demand was increasing enough.

In addition, and most importantly, nuclear plants that reprocess fuel have enough supply to generate all of humanity's exponentially growing power needs for 10,000+ years.

[junon]

> Germany trying to find a nuclear waste deposit since ages (that doesn't have to be evacuated due to ground water later on)

Waste can be refined to safe levels these days. It's just not being done on a wide scale.

> Failed nuclear plants we're deconstructing since ages and are paying millions every year to do so

We're paying unfathomable amounts of money dealing with carbon emissions - way more than millions, which is a drop in the bucket of taxpayer revenue, anyway.

> Nuclear fuel expected to be depleted in the next 100 years

And? That's 100 years of clean energy and a more livable planet. 100 years for more research. 100 years for other forms of energy capture or generation.

It's 100 years of bought time.

> State and taxpayers always having to pay for the disasters of nuclear plants, while the gains are going to the companies

"always" makes it sound like every week involves another nuclear "disaster". That's not accurate, at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

There are a few other lists that are related but I imagine this is what you intended. Please study the amount of people affected, directly, by those incidents.

By contrast, the heat wave this year killed at least 2,300 people in India alone.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/india-he...

> French nuclear plants that had some interesting failures in the last years, while we can just watch and hope they're treated correctly. Meanwhile you're told "nono, everything is fine".

Who is saying "everything is fine"? That's a seemingly extreme reduction of public outreach, especially since the IAEA has been trying to do good about being transparent with the world's nuclear operations.

> No nuclear company is insured for the real amount of money they'd have to pay for the next fukushima or Tschernobyl.

While I don't disagree things could be improved there, I'm so tired of Chernobyl being used as some "all nuclear is bad" example. Chernobyl was a cost-cutting endeavor, and the design was known to be faulty well before it failed. It was implemented in an incredibly corrupt system and poorly operated. The safety measures were not developed yet, and regulatory committees simply didn't exist at the time like they do now.

Chernobyl ignored the science. It was, quite literally, a ticking time bomb. Yes, we could be doomed to repeat this if we so chose, but that's such a far reaching example that it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

> It's the country with stories like these:

This is entirely unrelated and FUD from two clearly biased publications.

> I could even suspect USA influence to prevent more solar money to china or gas/oil money to russia.

This is speculation, fullstop.

[Tsarbomb]

Here I am in Canada, in a city powered by the largest nuclear facility in the world by output, in a province where 60% of the power is Nuclear.

Please tell me more about how it is bad, or do you only cherry pick your arguments?