Why people here argue about cost or energy potential or resource mine of nuclear? Meme only about fossil waste extremely normalized?

“Indestructible”?

#HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Thanks for the laugh, pal.

Forcing nuclear down our throats while renewables are a thing is so wild. And people actually defend nuclear.

You want mining of sparse minerals by workers in inhuman conditions? Check

You want a contamination which will exist for longer than the oldest human build structure? Check (because the barrels you made made indestructible, just dont test this pls)

You want centralized energy way more expansive than solar or wind? Check

There are literally no upsides of nuclear against renewables and a battery.

Nuclear is the best btw

Naw. I was once enrolled in an Energy/Climate-focussed Masters degree, and scientific consensus for the goal generally seemed to range from "mostly renewables + a tiny bit of nuclear" to "all renewables". Nuclear feels like this amazing hack but it's expensive, and the storage problem, while sometimes overstated, is also often understated or falsely misrepresented as solved.

Get lost with your expensive nuclear energy. Renewables produce MUCH cheaper energy.

Indestructible like the Runit dome?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-15/cracks-appear-in-runit-dome-amid-sea-level-rise/106423684

Nonsense, fision energy is expensive and dangerous.

Only in Germany there are over 12.000 tons of radioactive waste and nobody knows where to stored it secure for the next 100.000 years. It's depending on third countries to import the needed Uranium Indestructibles containers in a geological stable vault is a bad joke, it don't exist, at least not enough for all the waste, not even for the already existing. A nuclear reactor has a life span of ~50 years max, after this it need to be eliminated, a process of over 10 years for descontamination and elimination of more radioactive waste with a cost of billions of $, paid by the country, as said, by you, not by the company. Means 50 years energy and >50.000 years problems. Nuclear is the best, but only if we have an working fusion reactor, means, maybe in 10-20 years. Meanwhile the fision energy is sponsored by certain lobbies and the weapon industry, they are the real reason.

In Spain the energy costs for the user are ~14 cts/kWh at some hours even free (the lowest costs in the EU), thanks to the intensive use of renevable energy, blocked often by fossil and nuclear lobbies in other countries.

Ah, that must be why first world countries like France are trying to export their nuclear waste into third world countries, after they were forced to stop exporting it into Russia...

If it's so safe, why have they been closing down every single high level waste permanent storage site over the last decade?

pro-nuke when you tell them nuclear energy is fossil fuel energy: 😡

*wind and solar are unarguably the best energy sourcrs, and the only sustainable ones.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/russia-s-820-mw-sodium-cooled-reactor-burns-next-gen-actinide-nuclear-fuel-successfully/ar-AA229IGY

The goal of this technology is to reduce the volume of radioactive waste that requires deep geological disposal. Rosatom indicated that eliminating minor actinides could allow nuclear waste to reach radiation equivalence with the original uranium feedstock hundreds of times faster than natural decay.

Nuclear is the best btw.

What's the LCoE of new nuclear? What's the LCoE when you add the cost of the storage mentioned in your meme?