> The waste problem in particular I think is overstated, and costs are deliberately presented in a way as to appear expensive Not to mention the reactors we ar

> The waste problem in particular I think is overstated, and costs are deliberately presented in a way as to appear expensive Not to mention the reactors we are looking at now that can re-burn this waste (e.g. TWR). > and it is disingenuous to even by implicitly equate this with environmental pollution The radiation damage from coal is, on average, more than that of nuclear power plants for the surrounding area (only doing better briefly after a meltdown). Coal contains thorium and other radioactive elements, which are kicked up into the atmosphere in the ash and land absolutely everywhere.[1] [1]: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta...