Nuclear objectionable due to the highly toxic waste product for which no accepted solution has been implemented yet.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of nuclear energy as a CO2-less high potential source of energy, it's just that they're fucking around with the waste too much and umming and arring about it while it just sits near the nuclear power plants, instead of just burying it in a mountain like they do in finland [0]). They could decomission a strip mine and fill it back up with lead-and-concrete encased nuclear waste, then bury it in another few hundred meters of sand - nobody would be the wiser for the next millennia. In theory.
It’s pretty safe being stored near nuclear power plants. The folks keeping it from being buried in a mountain are folks opposed to nuclear energy… ironically due to (overblown) waste concerns. They don’t WANT the waste problem to be solved.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of nuclear energy as a CO2-less high potential source of energy, it's just that they're fucking around with the waste too much and umming and arring about it while it just sits near the nuclear power plants, instead of just burying it in a mountain like they do in finland [0]). They could decomission a strip mine and fill it back up with lead-and-concrete encased nuclear waste, then bury it in another few hundred meters of sand - nobody would be the wiser for the next millennia. In theory.
[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/finland-built-tomb-s...