The coal industry has convinced the ecologists to require titanic standards from literally every green energy source, especially the one with the most stable output.
> Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead.
I am into doing that, AND the nuclear stuff. No need to tie an anchor to our ankle while we try to metaphorically swim back to the surface.
The two is not exclusive. You do need stable base energy production and none of the renewables solve it well. Hydro could do it, but the locations where it is appropriate are few and it has quite a big ecological impact in and of itself.
I think renewables are very important, but just this week was a comment about Netherlands (I think) where the comparison was 200sqm against 4400 wind turbines and somewhat 20sqkm if you compare nuclear vs. wind/solar.
If you take a look at Switzerland, I have no clue where to put 4k wind turbines. Hell, even 1000 won't have enough space (or you will waste so much forests or agrar or you'll put them into alps and waste the scenery, which will break tourism).
From refinement to the reactor and spent fuel processing, the nuclear power industry generates a huge amount of trash that is low-grade radioactive and thus cannot be just dumped in a landfill.
The nuclear industry has had over seventy years to get their act together regarding fuel recycling. They'd rather just dump it into pools on-site because it's cheapest and makes it Someone Else's Problem. It's the same attitude of the chemical industry from the 1950's: dump it in a hole and let someone else deal with it after you've long since left.
Here's an idea: let's spend the money on wind turbine blade, battery, and solar panel repurposing and recycling instead.