It has already been solved, and a search should tell you all about it.
I'm still on mobile, so sharing links is still a pain, but a few key things:
Nuclear waste is produced quite slowly, so whatever cost you associate with storage is over a large period of time; we have the technology to build centrals that can use that waste to produce more energy, reducing waste even further.
No, you have one safer option (solar), and just barely. And again, that is after a decade of heavy investment and development. The data doesn't lie. You can't just just throw out science and data when it doesn't serve you. Stop spreading BS. You are quite literally spreading misinformation.
Don't know, you'd have to ask the experts; what I do know is that the data shows nuclear is safer than wind and much safer than hydro.
I'm on mobile right now so it's convenient to find and post it, but if you want you can scroll my profile and you should some older comments with the data and sources.
Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it's not an "if".
Honestly,I feel like I'm back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it's about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around "But tHe ecOnOMy".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.
Most of the benefits and drawbacks you mention only became a reality after a decade of heavy focus and investment on renewables, with no similar focus on nuclear. It could be argued that if the same investment and focused had been applied to it, then none of those arguments would be true. In fact, back then those were the same arguments used against renewables.
In other words, the arguments of "but money, and look at the economy" are absolute shit, and they are the reason we spent so long on oil. The facts it's now used in favor of renewables and to shut down discussion of other alternatives is quite ironic.
Edit: To add, as I've mentioned somewhere else:
That's half, by 2026, and they are accounting for nuclear. That means the other 50% will still be fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the planet is getting warmer, some places are going underwater, and we are getting extreme weather events more and more frequently. "But-but, the economy!"
Because it's still the second safest energy source, very close behind solar. And about 10 years ago, before heavy investment in renewables, it was the safest.
This is like being afraid of airplanes because things only have to go wrong once for hundreds to die.
Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.
I think this is it.
The historians I know of actually seem to lean quite left of the average person; it's the light hobbieists, who are often more interested in the aesthetics/surface stuff, who seem to fall victim to the alt-right stuff.
What you described is socialism; a communist society would also be a stateless, classless, and moneyless society.
goes to show most Europeans are shitty mannerless folks
Well, that's uncalled for... I can show you American MMA fighters saying/doing some pretty fucked up things, but it wouldn't really be fair to make such a statement about Americans, would it?
EDIT: Just to give an example, here and here is a (at the time) UFC champ, who suffered precisely 0 consequences for any of this.
As a general rule, people who pursue fighting as a career are typically not great people.
When I watched the video, I was shocked this even was a thing that happened.
I heard about the controversy for a while, heard some people say when they saw the fight they "understood why there was questioning", and heard something about a punch. As an avid MMA fan, I expected a scary knockout, like those where you hold your breath until you see the person start moving again.
Imagine my surprise when I finally saw the video, and watched an Olympic boxing fight for the first time. I see of them wearing headgear, one of them gets hit with a few good punches, gets to pause to adjust headgear, gets hit with a few more good punches and calls off the fight without her knees ever even buckling or getting stunned, and doesn't even have a mark on her face. Perhaps the neatest, least harmful fight I've ever seen.
To be clear, I don't hold it against her for realizing she probably won't be winning and quitting before taking unnecessary damage, I'm just shocked anyone would think Imane is trans or a man based on that fight. Imagine if those people ever saw Amanda Nunes, or Dakota Ditcheva, or Zhang Weili. But I'd guess most of those people never actual watch women compete in any sports unless there is a controversy like this one, at which point they become experts.
The scale on the left doesn't start at zero, so the difference is smaller than the size of the bars make it seem. The difference between #1 Slackware, and last spot Arch, is 0.75 points in a 0 to 10 scale, but the bar size of Slackware is about 2.5x bigger than the bar for the Arch users.
The materials you are classified as "low level waste", and they are "materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity", and they actually make up 94% of waste in the Uk, but according to this article, it's 95%.
96% of spent nuclear fuel is Uranium, which can be reused.
Purely anecdotal; here's a different anecdote.
Here's is also a National Geographic article about this topic, and here is another.
Here is also the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022. You'll notice that after heavy R&D in renewables, nuclear is still the second safest; with all top three being really close, but hydro being a far 4th.
Please stop with the fear based, anti-scientific, rhetoric. I shouldn't feel like I'm arguing with climate deniers or pro oilers when talking with supposed environmentalists. Which reminds of the reason why this is so important: renewables alone still can't meet the energy demand without the assistance of fossil fuels, and the energy requirements keep rising:
"Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years" - they are accounting for nuclear, but nevertheless: "Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026".
Almost half, by 2026, accounting for nuclear. And we are still getting warmer.