I think you have it backwards, wind and solar are the stopgap.

Wind and solar require heavy mining of non-renewable, relatively rare resources that will likely run out in a couple generations. Solar panels and wind turbines have a short lifespan of a few decades, and we aren't good at recycling.

Look at the world leader in clean energy- China - and their long term plans. They are heavily invested in solar, for now, as a stopgap measure as they develop thorium reactor power and other related technologies.

Generally, the economics of nuclear involve a very large upfront cost followed by cheap energy afterwards. Maintaining existing plants usually makes sense but building new ones should only be done with careful consideration of other options in the long term. On demand power can be used to supplement a grid so having a variety of options makes sense.

But it seems like everybody just picks up one thing as their pet solution and tries to promote it in absolute terms, which doesn't really make sense. Different environmental conditions call for different solutions, and imperfect options can still have a use case. There isn't really a "best."

https://practical.engineering/blog/2025/4/15/when-kitty-litter-caused-a-nuclear-catastrophe

https://youtu.be/1LVqkhpp0wQ

Old video demonstrating that nuclear waste casks can survive severe accidents, such as a train crashing at 80 mph

You’re the one buying the propaganda “cheapest and safest”

But you wouldn't see that either.

Not until it's too late

I was just referring to the sun in a non technical way.

Ohhh. I get it.

Let's not pretend other fossil fuels don't have the same problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill

Also, in the best case scenario, none of that shit goes back into the ground. We just burn it, or turn it into plastic, and it stays in our lives forever.

Do you think people are running around just knowing the names and financial details of every nuclear power installation on the planet?

How about this. No googling or looking up a reference here, just be honest.... Name 1 coal power station.

Nobody here is trying to defend coal lmao

Huh. We don't either in Germany, but I assumed, it was largely because the whole place is inhabitated. Is there not some desert or Alaska or something in the US, where no one minds?

The point is not to defend coal. The point is that the information you are asking for casually is not something that the typical person has on hand (nor is it easily researched). The request is patently ridiculous.

Strange? How can that be if Nuclear is "so cheap"....sooo many power plants and u cant find a single one that isnt burning state money to run or clean up after.

Meanwhile solar is so profitable now that even for home usage its worth it to normal people....oh and its also decentral how nice.

Digging shit out of the earth that will poision everthing with radioactive dusts miles around the mine...then using it for a while before not having a solution to store it....makes only sense when you have to run a submarine for national security or a deepspace probes power generator.

But that itself would be very expensive so why no offload some of the mining and refining cost onto the civilians....

I asked you for a citation dummy

Common sense.
And if u to lazy to find me a single profitable nuclear powerplant...dont call me the dummy.

Mom says it’s my turn on the propaganda.

It's spelled BREATHE

Breath is what you TAKE
Breathe is what you DO

You are missing out on the very long tail of waste disposal and treatment and the associated costs and risks.

QAA podcast has a pretty~bleak~ good episode on it here

This, but unironically

Still better than coal

or spicy rain.

Solar and storage for the win(d)!

https://www.desmog.com/2024/09/19/from-uk-to-norway-drillers-legally-dump-tonnes-of-toxic-radioactive-waste-into-the-north-sea/

As far as I am aware there is no final storage for atomic waste anywhere. France wants to build one in 2030 but we'll see then I guess.

I'm quite pro nuclear, I think the mass decomissioning of nuclear plants that's been happening in Europe is the wrong move. But this is an incredibly reductive and dishonest meme.

Nuclear industry propaganda? Lol, lmao even

Outside a few specialized company, nuclear industry doesn't even exist

-"But solar panels destroy the environment!!1!"

At least we can trust the fossil fuel industries storage place.

Just like a financial portfolio, our energy ecosystem is only safe if it's well and proper distributed. Excess energy can be stored, or simply routed to ground, programs that incentivise energy use during unexpected peak periods already exist, there's absolutely no reason not to over-plan and engineer it just to avoid shit like what goes down in Texas almost every year...

Mining shills who want to spend $10b on concrete manufacturing and uranium mines.

What makes me laugh is that we could still invest that into mining, get the resources to make solar panels and batteries, then stop because battery recycling is a thing. They can still get rich off it. They just have a set period the mining is necessary while we get the amount required. But by then they could buy the solar farms and generate infinite income from the power generation... Are they all just bad at capitalism or something?

The long term cost of nuclear is by far the highest, unless we actually figure out a no maintenance storage method or other way to get rid of the waste. It's cheap in the moment, but effectively taking on a debt for a very long time. Not that dissimilar to fossil fuels, really. And just like with fossil fuels, the costs are socialized, because whatever company is responsible for the waste probably won't be around in 100, 500, or 1000 years.

Where else does the utterly false idea that nuclear waste is a solved problem come from, then?

Dunno if we should be making any broad conclusions about solar based off Australia

This is a misunderstanding of radioactive material. The atoms already exist & they are already spread all throughout the world. Building a reactor allows us to harness the energy of atoms decaying in a useful way.
As for the end product France is able to recycle up to 96% of spent fuel. The remaining 4% is being prepped & placed back in the ground at a site they are currently building.
If you want to read more this Stanford student wrote a well cited paper.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/friedman2/
Or you can read this this science insite article.
https://scienceinsights.org/what-does-france-do-with-nuclear-waste/

indeed. and the fuel gets concentrated and after it is spent and no longer usable, you can buy the fuel pellets on a keychain, yes?

Insufferable, it’s almost as if you come across as a German

Exactly. As if a poison that last longer than humans can plan for - or even realistically imagine - could ever be a solved problem.

Breath is what you TAKE

If you're The Police.

FEBREEZE

Another tor's cabinet of curiosities watcher, I see!

Ah yes the 'nuclear lobby' that spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year in propaganda. You sure are very smart for recognizing them.

The total number of people that have died in relation to anything nuclear, not just nuclear power, but research, weapons testing, and weapons use, is less than the number of people that died due to fossil fuels last year. It's also lower than the number of people that have died producing and installing solar panels.

The total cost per kWh for nuclear is also still lower than any other method of baseline power generation. This includes Solar + Battery configurations, regardless of the battery technology.

2 just from tom scott
https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50
https://youtu.be/PB7HT3BZLzM

Nuclear isn't the best anymore. Batteries, solar and wind are cheaper and take way less time to build

Solar is better in every way

Please explain how fossil fuel is stored in the air?? Dumbest thing ever read!

coal dust is partly radioactive

Fossil fuel waste. You know, carbon dioxide and air pollution.

Don't forget, that they produce immediately useable energy. No heat loss, due to steam turbines.

And then there is the timespan that nuclear waste stays harmful. OPs "indestructable" container have to stay indestructable for millions of years.

If we assume 40 years as a generation, that will be 50,000 generations. The whole history of mankind is only 400 generations.

Edit: Added sources for everyone unable to use the Internet for its intended use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-3

Half lifes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_plutonium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium

Estimating a generation of 40 years was generous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_time

History and pre history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

And then there is the timespan that nuclear waste stays harmful. OPs "indestructable" container have to stay indestructable for millions of years.

More like between 30 and 1000 years. Still a long time but you're being pretty hyperbolic suggesting millions.