People have issues with really visualizing and understanding order of magnitudes, I get it. > Spend 1/4th that on solar or wind subsidies and you get vastly mo

People have issues with really visualizing and understanding order of magnitudes, I get it. > Spend 1/4th that on solar or wind subsidies and you get vastly more carbon free energy Have you done the math, or are you just making that figure up? One single LWR generates from 1GW onwards. Do you know how much solar you need to generate the same amount of power? And that's disregarding the obvious issues with non-constant energy output. Plus - solar and wind, if you factor in the energy required to manifacture the components necessary for their operation, have negative EROI. https://energyeducation.se/wind-and-solar-energy-are-neither-renewable-nor-sustainable/ https://energyeducation.se/wind-and-solar-energy-are-neither... I have literally no idea why people think that solar and wind are a solution to the energy problem. It's like nobody has actually looked into the math and said "wow this makes me feel good so I'll support it". Let me repeat it, solar and wind have _negative_ EROI. If you invest in solar and wind, you're net losing energy. > 1 nuclear reactor can be quite safe, but 500 of them is 500 times the risk Modern nuclear is exceptionally safe. Europe is switching to freaking _coal_ in an effort not to freeze this winter. Statistically, they're killing hundreds of times more people than if they switched to nuclear at the right time. They're shutting down most of their nuclear for unknown reasons as well.