Is it green, or forever toxic? Nuclear rift at climate talks

Nuclear waste is not toxic forever. That is just wrong. There is a half life to the waste, so it can be calculated. There are also processing methods to take 90% of the waste today and reuse that as fuel, in the process converting most of the remaining "waste" into isotopes with drastically shorter half-life periods from hundreds of thousands of years, to just hundreds of years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171114091213.htm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste/

Oil refineries create some nasty by-products that never change and have to be stored forever, somewhere. Compared to those places, we have reasonable options with spent nuclear fuel to reprocess it, reuse most of it (90%+), and convert the remaining from long-life radioactive waste into relatively short-life radioactive waste.

I don't see any real solution to delivering power at night or in heavy rain besides nuclear power. Yes, we need to use wind, wave, and solar along with storage methods, but there will always need to be an on-demand way to generate power. The carbon free method is nuclear energy.

Also, many so-called 'green' solutions create their own toxicity problems. Batteries in cars are full of chemicals and require a very dirty manufacturing process. Just see what happens when they catch fire or are in a traffic accident. Solar panels will wear out in 20 years or so, then need to be disposed of. They are also full of hard-to-dispose-of materials. Wind turbines kill birds on a genocidal scale.

No easy answers.

Nuclear accidents are scary but exceedingly rare — while pollution from coal and other fossil fuels causes death and illness every day, scientists say.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths a year are attributed to fossil fuel emissions. Very few die from nuclear accidents. Now that the enviro-whackos have terrified people into believing the world will end in 2030 without drastic actions they are shocked that people are considering drastically increasing nuclear power over lowered living standards and more poverty. There are consequences with a switch to all non-fossil fuels and non-nuclear energy that do not scale to allow for a decent living.

nuclear energy waste polluting the planet for thousands of years is no contest as the worst polluting activity every conceived. To rationalize otherwise is insane

The thing most people don't get is that burning fossil fuels releases a lot of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Strange how so many of the 'highly concerned about the dangers of radiation' groups and politicians that are so vocal and alarmist and totally focused on stopping the construction of nuclear energy plants never oppose a fossil fuel one.

Think it's coincidence?