> uniquely long-term risks for mistakes or natural disasters. Fossil fuels have unique long term risk WITHOUT mistakes. Hydro has incredibly high risk for lo

> uniquely long-term risks for mistakes or natural disasters. Fossil fuels have unique long term risk WITHOUT mistakes. Hydro has incredibly high risk for long term destruction and has proven it often. Even pro renewable people agree that gas will need to stick around as backup, so gas infrastructure needs to stick around, with incredibly risk of accident and gas leakage. A unique vulcanic event can make solar massively under-produce and if a society doesn't have enough backup it can have incredibly severe long term consequences. Such a volcanic even is probably more likely then a major failure of a nuclear plant causing much risk. An extraordinary storm could do the same for off-shore wind. > That doesn’t mean we don’t need to use it but there’s a lot of extra precautions needed around how fuel is refined, transported, used, and disposed of which nothing else has. And the others have huge AMOUNTS of waste that needs to be refined, transported, used and disposed off. A lot of those are not well captured and there is little regulation to control that. Wind turbines don't exist for that long and when they fail they have a unique disposal situation. Nuclear at least has a fuel that is 100% captured at the end of use. And nuclear reactor itself is tiny in the amount of resources required. A modern next generation reactor isn't much bigger then the next generation off-shore wind plants but produces 100x the energy at higher capacity factors.