> Edit: Honestly I can't understand, why everytime when nukeplants are mentioned, someone crawls from out under his stone and starts to whine about the bad, bad

> Edit: Honestly I can't understand, why everytime when nukeplants are mentioned, someone crawls from out under his stone and starts to whine about the bad, bad, bad radioactivity. Care to actually calculate what will happen if current reprocessing technology is expanded to cover more than about 5GW? Or are you in camp of running burner reactors on magic U235? This slimy whining about being held to account out of one side of your mouth whilst taking credit for the victories of 70 years of fighting against nuclear pollution out of the other is disingenuous and pathetic. > Meanwhile all the mining, refining, producing and transporting with every step between them, for all the shiny new solar, wind, wave and whichever regenerative and sustainable stuff is not able to power that. Not to mention the necessary battery storage. Which is smaller than the amount needed for a nuclear supply chain. > While coal plants work like enrichment facilities, just blowing the shit out with the winds, after burning shiploads or coal trains of that stuff day by day. Not to mention the other stuff like SO2, HG, NOx, CO2, ETC... So ban coal.