Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely interested: are you an expert in nuclear energy? If yes, I would be more than happy to get your view on that. You would be the very first expert I read that believes that "nuclear is so much worse" than fossil fuels, that are currently in a good direction to kill most living thing in the next few decades. We may not survive the consequences of fossil fuels, in our lifetime. Not sure how nuclear waste can be…
> Genuinely interested: are you an expert in nuclear energy? I know a lot about energy policy, through involvement in the policy development process. Fossil fuels are having a catastrophic effect on the environment and we must stop using them except in the very few cases there is no choice. The clear path to doing that is renewable energy, which now is cheaper in almost every case. There are no unknown problems to re…
Right. So not an expect in nuclear waste.
> The clear path to doing that is renewable energy, which now is cheaper in almost every case.
But which are built with fossil fuels, and which are cheaper in a world with abundant fossil fuels to make and transport them.
It's not clear at all that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels. Actually, it seems pretty clear that they can't. Even nuclear energy can't. It's just that we need to maintain some low-emission energy (as much as we can, which is not enough to avoid a degrowth).
> Nuclear - if pushed to the (il)logical conclusion will destroy the world such that normal human life becomes impossible in many places.
This is nonsense. How do you extrapolate from some nuclear wastes to "human life is impossible"?