| > 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. |