> Still looking to see what harm solar is doing that it is not paying for.

Nuclear power is doing measurably less harm - in deaths, in habitat damage, in volume of waste produced and management thereof. Solar companies also aren't going to be held liable for the social costs of grid disruption which will inevitably cause outages or require additional countermeasures by other parties to secure their electricity supply.

Nobody is going to protest when solar company employees get skin cancer. Nobody is going to protest solar power when toxic sludge from carelessly-disposed heavy metals waste (or indeed solar panels themselves) contaminates drinking water in some rural town. Groups won't be organised to phase out solar installations in response to accidents in foreign countries.

And I think solar is perfectly fine, I just don't see why we impose all these silly restrictions on nuclear when it is a measurably superior form of energy.

> I'm surprised it takes 50 mines for uranium, that's far far more than I had expected.

Sounds like you might be in for a nasty shock when you find out how many coal mines the world has.

I think solar has the highest number of deaths/kWh produced among renewable energies, because of people falling from roofs installing them.

EDIT: Looked at Our World in Data, and all renewables and nuclear are actually comparable. They're orders of magnitude below fossil fuels and biomass.

Except powering global civilization with solar means using most ground-mounted large scale solar fields, not covering rooftops. The latter is more a way to game utility billing systems, and is inherently unfair to those left paying for grid power and subsidizing the grid for the solar powered free riders (who get the reliability benefit of the grid at low cost.) Rationalizing the design of grid billing to make everyone pay their share of this reliability service makes rooftop solar much less attractive.