Yes, we will need nuclear energy if we want to mitigate this problem. Get out of the way you antinuclear fanatics.

Used fuel can't leak. Leaking implies a liquid. Used fuel is a solid. Go drink some shit!

Used fuel is a heavy metal encased in ceramic. It can't leak DF

That's the dumbest thing I have ever read. And that's hard to do since anti-nuclear scumbags are dumb as shit.

What a crock of shit. Here are some facts about used fuel(aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant)

It has a total kill count of zero. Yes zero. Meanwhile, 8.7 million people die annually from the waste from fossil fuels and biofuels.

It is a solid metal encased in ceramic. The Simpsons' caricature of green goo is false.

There isn't a lot of it. We could put all of it(yes, all of it) in a building the size of a Walmart. France keeps all of theirs in a room the size of a high school gym--that people walk on.

Cask storage has been perfect. It has a 100% perfect record. Put it in my backyard.

Cask storage is cheap. It's just cement and steel.

All those claims that it's dangerous for thousands of years are untrue. The amount of radiation released from used fuel follows an exponentially decaying curve. All the highly radioactive isotopes decay completely within 5 years (which is why they keep it in water for 10). After the medium-radioactive isotopes, cesium and strontium, completely decay within 270 years, you can handle used fuel with your bare hands.

Weapons waste and medical waste are not used fuel. Used fuel is the material produced by a nuclear power plant. They are different. It's like saying we should ban oranges because apple seeds are bad for you.

Weapons != energy

Climate change could have been averted if we properly pursued nuclear energy.

To date, zero countries have deep decarbonized their grids with solar and/or wind.

France: 29 g CO2 per kWh with its nuclear baseload.

Sweden: 21 g CO2 per kWh, using nuclear and hydro.

Germany: 334 g CO2 per kWh after spending 15 years and hundreds of billions of euros on its energy transition.

Nuclear will be a necessary part of the solution. The only countries to have deep decarbonized their grid did it with hydro and/or nuclear. And since hydro is location-dependent and environmentally destructive, it won't scale. Atoms before Dams!

STOP THE FEARMONGERING LATIMES

Remember, all antinuclear activists are fossil fuel simps.

Your goto example is 5.6 GW for 32 billion. That's a good deal.

Maybe you dumbfuck antinuclear scumbags shouldn't have blocked nuclear construction for the last 50 years. You guys really are pieces of shit.

Apple TV has the worst bandwidth problems of any major streaming service. It also bugs out if it runs on anything other than a mac, which was probably done intentionally.

Nuclear is keeping the grid running in Europe. France is still the leading exporter of electricity.

You wouldn't get more for your money elsewhere. Energy returned on Investment for nuclear is high.

More bullshit from you.

Cause solar is going to have a high capacity factor in Canada. \s And yes I want a nuclear power plant in my backyard.

Climate change, air pollution, and energy poverty. Having a reliable grid is a good reason in itself.

We also pay people not to grow food. It reminds me of this quote -

Conservatives are often the biggest hypocrite.

Hydro is location-dependent and environmentally destructive. It cannot scale to meet the world's energy needs. Atoms before dams. Also no one has deep decarbonized their grid with just solar and wind.