[nixos]

>hypothetical nuclear waste.

Chernobyl isn't hypothetical. And neither is Fukushima. And those weren't as bad as they could have been.

And we still don't know what to do with all the waste we have.

[closeparen]

We could replace coal with nuclear yesterday if the anti-nuclear activists would stand down. Instead, they have fought to continue a status quo whose death toll we start couting at 25,000 people per year lost to black lung [0]. No serial killer or terrorist could dream of effecting mass casualites as efficiently as the proponents of this viewpoint do when they take action that results in the continued and expanding operation of coal power generation, despite an alternative which is actually viable in every respect but their opposition.

Yes, nuclear power has problems. But even if it killed 24,000 people per year, blocking the replacement of coal by nuclear would still be a willful choice to cause the deaths of 1,000 people (it's getting really hard not to say murder).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis

[adrianN]

Of course we know what to do with the "waste": Keep it close, it's precious fuel for breeder reactors.

[ljf]

The waste isn't just the spent fuel though - see my other comments...