but you really can’t say that scaling up renewable energy is less environmentally impacting than finding a place to store spent waste when you have to destroy entire habitats to fuel the material needs of solar panels.
Why? Why can't you say this?
Nothing you've said up to this point indicates any expertise here, just parroting pop-science propaganda from the pro-nuclear crowd.
Nuclear waste, waste that does not degrade on a human timescale, waste that will seep into the waterways and poison both people (the poorest first) and the environment is arguably on-par for damaging our ecosystem as oil has been. It's not just funky rocks, it's poisonous material we don't currently, and have no prospects for a feasible way to safely contain.
In the same way we kicked the threat of CO2 and plastics down the line for a future generation to solve, banking on nuclear with no possible solution is a dangerous choice.
Why? Why can't you say this?
Nothing you've said up to this point indicates any expertise here, just parroting pop-science propaganda from the pro-nuclear crowd.
Nuclear waste, waste that does not degrade on a human timescale, waste that will seep into the waterways and poison both people (the poorest first) and the environment is arguably on-par for damaging our ecosystem as oil has been. It's not just funky rocks, it's poisonous material we don't currently, and have no prospects for a feasible way to safely contain.
In the same way we kicked the threat of CO2 and plastics down the line for a future generation to solve, banking on nuclear with no possible solution is a dangerous choice.
deleted by creator