"This is the brief, simple story of two major clean energy projects, and how one exposes the double standards suffered by the other."
> a reactor that won't blow up
*Any* reactor of the 450 currently operational in the world won't "blow up". You have been watching too many horror movies.
> store the byproducts for 1000s of years
You have been lied to. High waste loses 93% of its activity after only 100 years.
And before you complain about the tiny amount of waste that is left, let me introduce you to K+S facilities in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz which already store extremely toxic waste for decades.
https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/
Have you heard Greenpeace freak about them?
No. Because they "only" store mercury, cyanide and arsenic waste.
Which does *not* lose toxicity over time, unlike nuclear waste.
What are you going to do about that?
> we can talk.
I don't think we can. You made your mind ages and and are totally immune to any data and arguments.
@kravietz I'm sorry. I didn't want to trigger your fervor for more nuclear power.
The article you linked originally seemed to me a little careless about why people are not into nuclear. I pointed that out.
And as somebody who personally biked through Chernobyl fallout as a teen, I know exactly why most Germans don't want anything to do with it.
But you do want 24/7 energy and you are ready to burn coal, oil and fossil gas to obtain it. Oh and you also certainly are concerned about climate change. Makes perfect sense π€·ββοΈ
@kravietz I don't want to reiterate decades of pro/con nuclear power discussions. Show me a reactor that won't blow up and a safe & practical way to store the byproducts for 1000s of years and we can talk.