> And nuclear waste is nothing to you? Not everything is about CO_2 you know

This is an incredibly disingenuous comparison. Nuclear waste is not even remotely as much of a problem as CO2 emissions. Nuclear waste can be encased in concrete and buried in remote areas. There are also several areas already irradiated by nuclear bomb testing, so putting the waste there is moot (This applies to the Yucca Mountain facility). The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste could result in human contamination are borderline absurd. Sure, if society collapses and all records of these waste locations are lost, and if some future civilization decides to dig a mile deep in a remote area with no natural resources, and if they decide to crack open these concrete caskets because all knowledge of 21st Century languages are lost so they can't read the warnings, and if they manage to do all this without knowledge of radiation then humans might get contaminated.

By comparison, CO2 emissions get pumped straight into the atmosphere

> It is indeed a significant accomplishment. Let's keep it that way by ceasing operation on time and not risk tarring the accomplishment with a reactor failure.

Yeah, and then turn around and build more coal and gas plants because the other alternatives cannot provide consistent power at the same price point. This is what happened in Germany and Japan. Anti-nuclear runs contrary to the principles of clean energy. In fact some estimates indicate that the coal plants built in Japan following the reactor closures after the Fukishima Daichi plant failure will actually end up emitting more radiation than the incident itself.

Literally everything is about CO2. It'll destroy civilization much faster than nuclear waste.

If we do make it over that hurdle, and the many other imminent threats our civilization faces, nuclear fuel is the only means we have (with current technology) of sustaining interstellar travel. Other fuels are too bulky and solar won't work when we get a certain distance from our star. I mean, CO2 and the lies surrounding it are probably going to kill us, and if that doesn't, nuclear war will, and if we manage to muster the level of cooperation and honesty needed to survive these issues, we still face self replicating nanite disasters, murderous omniscient AI disasters, anything you can imagine could kill us before we manage to spread our society into the stars. But if we do want to perform any meaningful operations in deep space, nuclear fuel conservation will be of the utmost importance. Surviving the wealthy few who control these resources and want to use them will be far harder than any other task of cooperation we are faced with.

What about methane?

[Its] impact is 34 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period

https://unfccc.int/news/new-methane-signs-underline-urgency-...

That's another thing destroying civilization much faster than nuclear waste. Not sure why you mention it in this thread on nuclear waste.

I was responding to the previous comment which said that "Literally everything is about CO2."

That reactor would have produced about 800 metric tons of nuclear waste in its lifetime. That's quite a manageable amount, about a small warehouse in size.

And aren't newer reactors more efficient? Either way, even the old amount seems manageable to bridge the gap in switching to renewable energy.

Nuclear waste is neatly contained to a portion of the continent where it's buried, and can be easily avoided by a significant part of the civilization. CO2 blankets the entire planet, and from that there is no escape.

Forrest for the trees. Nuclear waste is trivial in comparison to the extinction level event we are causing. But sure, complain about nuclear waste and push for solar and wind that have to be backed by fossil fuels for some solid status quo.

1. "Trivial" is not "Zero".

2. Nuclear waste is not as trivial as you make it sound, especially if you consider the length of time it has to be managed.

However, even present-day renewable technology can apparently provide 80% of project US energy demand of 2050: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-ru... ; and expected to provide 70% of Denmark's demand by next year already (same article) - despite the non-uniform output of Solar and of Wind. And technology marches on.

3. If countries link up their grids, there would be some mitigation of the non-uniformity of Solar and Wind output.

4. Energy storage technology.

5. CO_2 is a big issue. But non-renewable energy sources which run the risk of causing nuclear holocausts - while not entirely out of the question should be considered only to the extent renewable sources cannot be exploited instead.

6. IIANM One can also significantly decrease the amount of CO_2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired plants through different process technology. It's not clear to me that between that and construction of nuclear plants, the latter wins out (although I don't have a strong opinion on the matter).