i legit thought that although nuclear is more expensive, atleast at the initial investment, that solar/wind lasts much less than nuclear, i mean they are still using some soviet nuclear plants yk

well we already have many nuclear plants and no real danger has occured since chernobyl/mile island (that i know of), you just need heavy goverment regulations

thanks, i mean i dont really think we should just have nuclear yk, but i wish it was the main power source, although the only issue i really have is that if i personally would love a more decentralized power grid, how could that ever be acomplished with nuclear energy? its not like we can just have mini reactors, right?

where can i read more about this i dont know shit ngl

what are you suggesting tho, fossil is clearly and factually worse for the enviroment compared to nuclear, i mean do you know how big the earth is? sure radiactive waste may seem big and scary to you, but as halcyoncmdr mentioned earlier, it is really not that much of an issue, the earth is really big and we can just hide it really deep below, much better than putting shit in the atmosphere for us to suck into our lungs.

hmmmmmmmmmm u do have a point, but i mean lithium is running out and we need a constant influx of power (power grid, no batteries) like with nuclear, we could never afford to use batteries for all the energy in the planet. also i THINK that hydro disturbs the ecosystem (fish n stuff cant get through) but im not sure how true that is considering that they can always just open a gate for fish to pass, like with that online dorbell.

higher ups 100% look past the fearmongering of chernobyl and other accidents, nuclear is the safest compared to the many accidents that occur in solar, wind etc (if you look past the accidents which just dont happen nowadays, also considering that china has literally made a reactor that is physically impossible to meltdown)