>I keep thinking discussions are stacked against nuclear unfairly. It's almost as if there are two different arenas to compete: (1) fossil fuels, which is by de

>I keep thinking discussions are stacked against nuclear unfairly. It's almost as if there are two different arenas to compete: (1) fossil fuels, which is by definition unsexy and ugly, but grandfathered simply because "we need them" now, and (2) everything else, who has to compete against each other on the criteria of "Fine, so we do have fossil fuels, what now?" Not just that, every other power source is rated on only the damage it does when producing power. By comparison nuclear is held to the standard that everything from mining to decommission needs to be taken into account. By that metric solar kills more people per kwh by the simple fact that installing it means walking on high unsecured places that you fall down from. This is treated as a joke. Somehow we imagine that solar panels of the end of their 10 year life span just fall apart into pixie dust and ignore how environmentally damaging they really are. The average coal plant releases more nuclear waste in a near than the all but the three worst nuclear accidents. The list goes on an on.