You can not deal with toxic waste easily, as all attempts to do so have shown. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/publikati

You can not deal with toxic waste easily, as all attempts to do so have shown. See https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/publikationen/broschueren/transport_lagerung/dezentr_zwischenlager.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140508211057/http://www.bfs.de... for a report. Nuclear energy is decidedly not a flexible backup option for anything. Those plants are slow to regulate, have never been and will never be a backup. The solution is energy storage and producing so much more at the peak that at the low end is enough. Also, there is no problem importing from countries that do have more geothermal or hydro energy. > But they would not grow comparable to burning actual stuff. Not even close. You are being disingenious The comparison is invalid in the first place. It's not about nuclear vs fossil, I never did argue for fossil energy. So the comparison you opened up is bs anyway. It's a propaganda talk point of nuclear proponents that tries to mislead from the actual comparison to make, which is renewables vs the other options. The decision of the EU court was unfortunate, stupid, and that appeal to authority does not function.