Nuclear power is literally more expensive at this point than renewables. No, you can’t keep using the shitty, cracking, deadly waste producing nuclear plants of the past, not even the power companies want that, and building new ones takes over 10 years, not counting all the planning and beaurocracy you have to go through. And to become CO2 neutral after all the excavation, construction and mining necessary takes another decade. Nuclear power plants are MASSIVE engineering undertakings.
Meanwhile modern windmills can be mass-produced right now and take like 5 years depending on their placement to be both cost and CO2 neutral. After that it’s LITERALLY free energy for a good 30 years. And they become cheaper and bigger and more efficient every single year. And btw if you ever pull out an article or a calculation that is older than a year for any comparison, you are dealing with OLD data. They have become far more efficient and flexible in their placement and will likely continue to do so.
The anti-nuclear protests were completely right. Stop playing the people who wanted a safer world without nuclear waste and incidents against the modern climate movement.
TL;DR: Wheels on windmill go brrrr, nuclear power is not a short term solution and never has been.
Nuclear and renewables are complementary technologies, renewables are a much more volatile source of energy. Also, when people say renewables are cheaper they’re not counting the total lifecycle of things like wndmills and solar panels.
Good news, the Chinese artificial sun has reached 403 seconds of stability. Up from 100 seconds 7 years ago. Once it reaches 1000 seconds at 50,000,000 Kelvin, it would mean it produces more energy than igniting the “sun” would cost.
I do think it’s very likely that we’ll see fusion working within our lifetimes. If China manages to get a fusion plant online then that really will solve all the energy problems for the foreseeable future.
Complimentary is irrelevant. Coal and solar are complimentary, you can have a grid using both of those technologies. Renewables aren’t really that volatile. Batteries exist.
Ad hominem again. This is no way to have a constructive discussion. Please use arguments to support your position and don’t attack the opposition personally.
You don’t understand what ad hominem means. Ad hominem isn’t just when you insult someone. Ad hominem is when you attempt to logically refute a point by using the speaker’s character as a source of evidence.
Ad hominem example:
My opponent argues that 2+2=7. He always got F’s in math, therefore this must be wrong.
No ad hominem, just insulting:
My opponent argues that 2+2=7. We can prove this is wrong by plugging into a calculator. Also, an irrelevant detail, he is stupid and bad at math.
My comment could not have made any logical fallacy because I made no attempt at logic or making an argument. All I intended was an insult. Again, username checks out.
Jesus Christ you’re so uneducated it’s ridiculous.
So you’ve got a point nuclear power is considerably more expensive than renewables but that was never the argument. It has always been more expensive than renewables, who possibly thought it wasn’t, that’s literally never not been the case, even 30 years ago.
The reason to use nuclear power is a base load. Renewables cannot generate the necessary level of energy demand in their entirety with the reliability that we need. It’s called base load Google it.
So you need something to provide constant reliable sources of energy, so you’ve got two options either we build a Dyson sphere and have solar panels all over it, or we have nuclear power stations. And I think you’ll agree that a dysons sphere might be a bit beyond us at this point.
If one thing is more expensive by some criteria guaranteeing something necessary and another thing cheaper by the same criteria not guaranteeing that, then the latter just doesn’t exist.
So nuclear energy is cheaper than alternatives for the same purpose.
Just like an active volcano may suddenly let out a lot of magma which is going to be quite warm, but one can’t just project as if that amount of heat is distributed over the average period between eruptions, while considering it for heating houses.
But then should it not be different in countries like France? There the energy mix is currently ~60% nuclear. But the cost of nuclear energy in France is also more expensive than e.g. renewable energy. And France is operating a lot old quite old reactors. The investment in these reactors have long been amortized and can know produce cheaper nuclear energy than most other countries, although it’s still more expensive than renewables.
In February 2012, President Sarkozy decided to extend the life of existing nuclear reactors beyond 40 years, following the Court of Audit decision that that would be the best option, for new nuclear capacity or other forms of energy would be more costly and available too late. Within ten years 22 out of the 58 reactors will have been operating for over 40 years
We discussed this possibility in the german public also, but we were not convinces that it’s safe to prolong the lifetime of nuclear reactors as the risks are too high.
Statistics and even graphs in general are not applicable in the “look, I’m right and you are wrong” way.
First, that LCOE likely doesn’t account for what I described. Because when wind turbines production is down (no wind), you don’t buy from the same source 10x the same price, you buy from another source, and because grids are centralized and have tariff agreements etc complex to just mix this way. It’s a bit like working with Soviet stats on Soviet economy - stats for centralized systems should be mixed carefully with what is intended to evaluate market mechanisms.
Second, in any case your picture shows cost of nuclear growing significantly. This might be because, say, of quite a few big sites in construction which will return the expenses like 10-15 years later at best, a nuclear site is a long-term investment, which is fact. This might also be because of a few sites being shut down in Europe due to ignorant idiots.
Statistics and even graphs in general are not applicable in the “look, I’m right and you are wrong” way.
I don’t think that’s right. Statistics are a very important tool in assessing the current situations anddrawing conclusion. Here’s an article about that: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037948/
Can you cite a source or present research data to support your second point?
Please keep the discussion civil and cite sources instead of succumbing to personal attacks. Calling the opposition ignored idiots does in no way contribute to proving your points.
The article depends on data which is not present there, so I can’t verify it, the rest is an almost lyrical text.
Can you cite a source or present research data to support your second point?
My second point is from me hearing of a few stations being currently built, some recently launched by Russia.
Which would be the data supporting it? A list of projects with estimated capacities, dates of turning operational, launch costs and expected returns? I don’t have it, but seems like a very small dataset.
Please keep the discussion civil and cite sources instead of succumbing to personal attacks. Calling the opposition ignored idiots does in no way contribute to proving your points.
On the contrary, you need a threshold for what is accepted opposition. You are never going to have the resources to listen to everyone and even to respect everyone. And even to to match every point in a checklist of “behaving correctly in a discussion” without losing the goal.
People replacing nuclear stations with coal\gas\etc supplied by authoritarian regimes and pretend that’s a moral decision are what I said.
I meant that referring to statistics just moves the argument to a lower level of what is the correct interpretation of the data.
I think the statistics presented are very clear and there’s little room for interpretation. It clearly shows that nuclear energy is not viable economically. And again: The cost for storing nuclear waste is not factored in there, which makes nuclear power even more expensive.
The article depends on data which is not present there, so I can’t verify it, the rest is an almost lyrical text.
The sources for the data are referenced in the PDF.
My second point is from me hearing of a few stations being currently built, some recently launched by Russia.
Which would be the data supporting it? A list of projects with estimated capacities, dates of turning operational, launch costs and expected returns? I don’t have it, but seems like a very small dataset.
I dont think this is vaiable argument from your side. The burden of proof for your opinions is your duty, not mine. Please present sources and data that nuclear power will be cheaper than other forms of energy production if we just build more nuclear power plants.
On the contrary, you need a threshold for what is accepted opposition. You are never going to have the resources to listen to everyone and even to respect everyone. And even to to match every point in a checklist of “behaving correctly in a discussion” without losing the goal.
This is IMHO also not true. If you do not accept arguments without consideration it’s a prejudice.
People replacing nuclear stations with coal\gas\etc supplied by authoritarian regimes and pretend that’s a moral decision are what I said.
This was not a decision of the politicians. Politics in Germany wanted to push nuclear energy further, but have been met with fierce protest by the people. So this is the will of the people not of the “authoritarian regimes” you hinted at.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany
Sure that would work in theory but you would struggle to get any kind of capacity with that system, and of course reservoirs are actually quite damaging to the environment, since you have to flood large areas of land.
Compare the cost of a new water reservoir and dam that can output the same as nuclear, with enough storage in the reservoir to store energy during renewable blackout periods.
More not bigger. This is economically viable in contrast to nuclear that only are making bank since they are funded by tax money. One of the reason he former is constructed. And there are no blackout periods. There is always production of renewable energy just more or less.
Nuclear on the other hand goes down all the time.
A reservoir is only “economically viable” with government action. Nobody is going to be able to acquire all that land without using eminent domain to force people to sell.
After that it’s LITERALLY free energy for a good 30 years.
If you ignore the other environmental costs, you mean. Just like solar, which causes untold damages from the disposal of mining refuse, but that gets conveniently ignored by first world nations, because most of the mining doesn’t happen where you live.
deadly waste producing nuclear plants of the past,
Don’t think people are stupid. That deadly waste naturally becomes less deadly over time. There are procedures for nuclear waste processing and burial sites and when those can be reused. The cycle takes many years, but that’d be the same with keeping forests, for example.
I don’t think that’s true. We will have to store our nuclear waste safely for geological timescales: possibly millions of years. Currently only two working reprocessing plants exist in France and Russia and they can be employed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In France currently only 10% is recycled.
Ah, I’ve just mixed up things a bit. I was thinking of fast-neutron reactors. Waste from these is less cumbersome, and the existing waste can be partially reused with them.
But they still do produce radiactive waste, which has to be taken care of. Its true that the amount and toxicity of long lived waste is reduced. But we still need to take care of the rest. And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste, I do think the risk of storing nuclear waste on the surface is too high.
I’m no expert on this topic, but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.
Fast-neutron reactors can potentially reduce the radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. Each commercial scale reactor would have an annual waste output of a little more than a ton of fission products, plus trace amounts of transuranics if the most highly radioactive components could be recycled.
And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste,
Yes, we don’t have things until we purchase or make or in this case build them.
but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.
I’m not an expert either, what I meant is that waste from dirtier kinds can partially be used as fuel for these, and I think I’ve heard they already do that.
But this is exactly the current problem in Germany: It is currently not feasible to create a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste. This is a extremely heated discussion with a lot of emtion going around. I do think we desperatley need such a facilty and we should have a process based on scientific evidence to find such a site. This is a work in progress by the German “Federal Office for the safety of Nuclear Waste Management”. But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce more nuclear waste.
My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.
But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce mre nucler waste.
That nuclear waste is being sent to countries having such facilities ; they also have some recycling capacity\expertise. Also introducing blockers where you don’t need them seems a bad idea for me always.
My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.
I’m not a specialist, at all. I’ve heard it is sometimes done to some extent. That’s all I can give you.
The issue is battery storage. Our current battery technology is terrible both ecologically and in terms of what it does to the people mining it and living in those countries.
I have that little suspicion that it was intentionally (efficiency) planted by USSR when it had connections to western leftists (all those “progressive youth summits” and so on), via emotional association with possible devastation of nuclear war etc.
Eh. Fission is in fact a terrible power source. Eternally deadly leftovers, critical failures have the potential to devastate whole regions of the planet for decades or more.
Mining and refining the fuel is similarly harmful to the environment as processing coal.
It is also not much cheaper than to go for the actually best solution called renewables. Wind and solar are both reasonably cheap at this point, and for example China was recently in my news feed for building an insane amount of solar in the last year (something like more than the U.S. in the last 10 years combined).
Obviously this is the correct choice for the future, likely paired with fusion power, which when it eventually works, comes with all the advantages of nuclear fission and none of its drawbacks or dangers.
It does change everything, when people fear nuclear waste, they talk about literally eternal. Otherwise we could say that reforestation is not possible, because it takes 70 years (if you are not just growing wood for fuel, furniture and mulch, but restoring a system).
If it’s not literally eternal, then it’s a working cycle which can be used and be more efficient.
EDIT: I’ve realized that the thing I’m remembering was written about fast-neutron reactors, which most are not, so you are right usually. It’s actually funny that Russia makes more ecologically clean reactors than USA. Stupid, but funny.
Being anti-nuclear is one of the most bizarre positions the western left has internalized.
Nuclear power is literally more expensive at this point than renewables. No, you can’t keep using the shitty, cracking, deadly waste producing nuclear plants of the past, not even the power companies want that, and building new ones takes over 10 years, not counting all the planning and beaurocracy you have to go through. And to become CO2 neutral after all the excavation, construction and mining necessary takes another decade. Nuclear power plants are MASSIVE engineering undertakings.
Meanwhile modern windmills can be mass-produced right now and take like 5 years depending on their placement to be both cost and CO2 neutral. After that it’s LITERALLY free energy for a good 30 years. And they become cheaper and bigger and more efficient every single year. And btw if you ever pull out an article or a calculation that is older than a year for any comparison, you are dealing with OLD data. They have become far more efficient and flexible in their placement and will likely continue to do so.
The anti-nuclear protests were completely right. Stop playing the people who wanted a safer world without nuclear waste and incidents against the modern climate movement.
TL;DR: Wheels on windmill go brrrr, nuclear power is not a short term solution and never has been.
Nuclear and renewables are complementary technologies, renewables are a much more volatile source of energy. Also, when people say renewables are cheaper they’re not counting the total lifecycle of things like wndmills and solar panels.
deleted by creator
I mean China is already making all the solar panels at this point, so we might as well wait for them to role out nuclear globally.
Good news, the Chinese artificial sun has reached 403 seconds of stability. Up from 100 seconds 7 years ago. Once it reaches 1000 seconds at 50,000,000 Kelvin, it would mean it produces more energy than igniting the “sun” would cost.
I do think it’s very likely that we’ll see fusion working within our lifetimes. If China manages to get a fusion plant online then that really will solve all the energy problems for the foreseeable future.
Complimentary is irrelevant. Coal and solar are complimentary, you can have a grid using both of those technologies. Renewables aren’t really that volatile. Batteries exist.
Yes coal and solar are complementary. But nuclear pollutes less than coal so it’s a better choice.
Maybe spend more time educating yourself on the realities of the situation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
If reading wikipedia pages is the height your knowledge on the subject that explains a lot actually.
Ad hominem again. This is no way to have a constructive discussion. Please use arguments to support your position and don’t attack the opposition personally.
I see somebody learned a new word. Good for you.
Maybe use arguments rather than succumb to ad hominem fallacies
Your username checks out
Yay more ad hominem fallacies. Try using arguments next time please.
You don’t understand what ad hominem means. Ad hominem isn’t just when you insult someone. Ad hominem is when you attempt to logically refute a point by using the speaker’s character as a source of evidence.
Ad hominem example:
No ad hominem, just insulting:
My comment could not have made any logical fallacy because I made no attempt at logic or making an argument. All I intended was an insult. Again, username checks out.
Jesus Christ you’re so uneducated it’s ridiculous.
So you’ve got a point nuclear power is considerably more expensive than renewables but that was never the argument. It has always been more expensive than renewables, who possibly thought it wasn’t, that’s literally never not been the case, even 30 years ago.
The reason to use nuclear power is a base load. Renewables cannot generate the necessary level of energy demand in their entirety with the reliability that we need. It’s called base load Google it.
So you need something to provide constant reliable sources of energy, so you’ve got two options either we build a Dyson sphere and have solar panels all over it, or we have nuclear power stations. And I think you’ll agree that a dysons sphere might be a bit beyond us at this point.
If one thing is more expensive by some criteria guaranteeing something necessary and another thing cheaper by the same criteria not guaranteeing that, then the latter just doesn’t exist.
So nuclear energy is cheaper than alternatives for the same purpose.
Just like an active volcano may suddenly let out a lot of magma which is going to be quite warm, but one can’t just project as if that amount of heat is distributed over the average period between eruptions, while considering it for heating houses.
That’s clearly not true. Nuclear energy is quite expensive in comparison to other sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Of course I’m literally looking at the same graph and as far as I can tell nuclear energy is equivalent in price to gas.
Can you also see the trend of the two graphs for nuclear and gas?
Did you see how much cheaper renewables are?
And do you think the cost for the long term storage of nuclear waste is included in the calculation?
That trend is exactly what I’d use as an argument in favor of nuclear energy. It shows that cost depends on adoption and on political situation.
But then should it not be different in countries like France? There the energy mix is currently ~60% nuclear. But the cost of nuclear energy in France is also more expensive than e.g. renewable energy. And France is operating a lot old quite old reactors. The investment in these reactors have long been amortized and can know produce cheaper nuclear energy than most other countries, although it’s still more expensive than renewables.
We discussed this possibility in the german public also, but we were not convinces that it’s safe to prolong the lifetime of nuclear reactors as the risks are too high.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France
https://energypost.eu/french-government-study-95-renewable-power-mix-cheaper-nuclear-gas/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laufzeitverlängerung_deutscher_Kernkraftwerke (Google Translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Laufzeitverlängerung_deutscher_Kernkraftwerke?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
Statistics and even graphs in general are not applicable in the “look, I’m right and you are wrong” way.
First, that LCOE likely doesn’t account for what I described. Because when wind turbines production is down (no wind), you don’t buy from the same source 10x the same price, you buy from another source, and because grids are centralized and have tariff agreements etc complex to just mix this way. It’s a bit like working with Soviet stats on Soviet economy - stats for centralized systems should be mixed carefully with what is intended to evaluate market mechanisms.
Second, in any case your picture shows cost of nuclear growing significantly. This might be because, say, of quite a few big sites in construction which will return the expenses like 10-15 years later at best, a nuclear site is a long-term investment, which is fact. This might also be because of a few sites being shut down in Europe due to ignorant idiots.
Here’s an article by dbresearch about the cost of energy production from different sources which IMHO clearly shows that nuclear power is already among the most cost intensive forms of energy production. And as I stated before it still completely neglects the cost of storing the nuclear waste for thousands of years to come. https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/Costs_of_electricity_generation%3A_System_costs_matt/RPS_EN_DOC_VIEW.calias?rwnode=PROD0000000000435629&ProdCollection=PROD0000000000528292
Can you cite a source or present research data to support your second point?
Please keep the discussion civil and cite sources instead of succumbing to personal attacks. Calling the opposition ignored idiots does in no way contribute to proving your points.
I’m sick, so don’t have energy for this argument and otherwise I wouldn’t have time.
I meant that referring to statistics just moves the argument to a lower level of what is the correct interpretation of the data.
The article depends on data which is not present there, so I can’t verify it, the rest is an almost lyrical text.
My second point is from me hearing of a few stations being currently built, some recently launched by Russia.
Which would be the data supporting it? A list of projects with estimated capacities, dates of turning operational, launch costs and expected returns? I don’t have it, but seems like a very small dataset.
On the contrary, you need a threshold for what is accepted opposition. You are never going to have the resources to listen to everyone and even to respect everyone. And even to to match every point in a checklist of “behaving correctly in a discussion” without losing the goal.
People replacing nuclear stations with coal\gas\etc supplied by authoritarian regimes and pretend that’s a moral decision are what I said.
Im sorry to hear that I hope you get well soon.
I think the statistics presented are very clear and there’s little room for interpretation. It clearly shows that nuclear energy is not viable economically. And again: The cost for storing nuclear waste is not factored in there, which makes nuclear power even more expensive.
The sources for the data are referenced in the PDF.
I dont think this is vaiable argument from your side. The burden of proof for your opinions is your duty, not mine. Please present sources and data that nuclear power will be cheaper than other forms of energy production if we just build more nuclear power plants.
This is IMHO also not true. If you do not accept arguments without consideration it’s a prejudice.
This was not a decision of the politicians. Politics in Germany wanted to push nuclear energy further, but have been met with fierce protest by the people. So this is the will of the people not of the “authoritarian regimes” you hinted at. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Germany
Pump water to height when it’s windy , let it down when it’s not. Load balanced. Not so hard eh?
Sure that would work in theory but you would struggle to get any kind of capacity with that system, and of course reservoirs are actually quite damaging to the environment, since you have to flood large areas of land.
Compare the cost of a new water reservoir and dam that can output the same as nuclear, with enough storage in the reservoir to store energy during renewable blackout periods.
More not bigger. This is economically viable in contrast to nuclear that only are making bank since they are funded by tax money. One of the reason he former is constructed. And there are no blackout periods. There is always production of renewable energy just more or less. Nuclear on the other hand goes down all the time.
Nuclear has one of the highest capacity factors. Meaning it actually goes down less than fossil fuels and especially renewables.
Like when there is low water…
A reservoir is only “economically viable” with government action. Nobody is going to be able to acquire all that land without using eminent domain to force people to sell.
No one can build nuclear without handouts. Wanna try and get insurance on a nuclear plant?
If you ignore the other environmental costs, you mean. Just like solar, which causes untold damages from the disposal of mining refuse, but that gets conveniently ignored by first world nations, because most of the mining doesn’t happen where you live.
They can be safely renovated, just informing you.
Don’t think people are stupid. That deadly waste naturally becomes less deadly over time. There are procedures for nuclear waste processing and burial sites and when those can be reused. The cycle takes many years, but that’d be the same with keeping forests, for example.
I don’t think that’s true. We will have to store our nuclear waste safely for geological timescales: possibly millions of years. Currently only two working reprocessing plants exist in France and Russia and they can be employed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In France currently only 10% is recycled.
Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/?sh=58d3d09f29cf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
Ah, I’ve just mixed up things a bit. I was thinking of fast-neutron reactors. Waste from these is less cumbersome, and the existing waste can be partially reused with them.
But they still do produce radiactive waste, which has to be taken care of. Its true that the amount and toxicity of long lived waste is reduced. But we still need to take care of the rest. And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste, I do think the risk of storing nuclear waste on the surface is too high.
I’m no expert on this topic, but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor
Yes, we don’t have things until we purchase or make or in this case build them.
I’m not an expert either, what I meant is that waste from dirtier kinds can partially be used as fuel for these, and I think I’ve heard they already do that.
But this is exactly the current problem in Germany: It is currently not feasible to create a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste. This is a extremely heated discussion with a lot of emtion going around. I do think we desperatley need such a facilty and we should have a process based on scientific evidence to find such a site. This is a work in progress by the German “Federal Office for the safety of Nuclear Waste Management”. But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce more nuclear waste.
My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.
That nuclear waste is being sent to countries having such facilities ; they also have some recycling capacity\expertise. Also introducing blockers where you don’t need them seems a bad idea for me always.
I’m not a specialist, at all. I’ve heard it is sometimes done to some extent. That’s all I can give you.
The issue is battery storage. Our current battery technology is terrible both ecologically and in terms of what it does to the people mining it and living in those countries.
I have that little suspicion that it was intentionally (efficiency) planted by USSR when it had connections to western leftists (all those “progressive youth summits” and so on), via emotional association with possible devastation of nuclear war etc.
Eh. Fission is in fact a terrible power source. Eternally deadly leftovers, critical failures have the potential to devastate whole regions of the planet for decades or more.
Mining and refining the fuel is similarly harmful to the environment as processing coal. It is also not much cheaper than to go for the actually best solution called renewables. Wind and solar are both reasonably cheap at this point, and for example China was recently in my news feed for building an insane amount of solar in the last year (something like more than the U.S. in the last 10 years combined).
Obviously this is the correct choice for the future, likely paired with fusion power, which when it eventually works, comes with all the advantages of nuclear fission and none of its drawbacks or dangers.
Somebody doesn’t know the bare basics of physics involved.
Im sure we can argue semantics here about reprocessing the stuff, eternal not actually being eternal and so forth, doesn’t really change much.
It does change everything, when people fear nuclear waste, they talk about literally eternal. Otherwise we could say that reforestation is not possible, because it takes 70 years (if you are not just growing wood for fuel, furniture and mulch, but restoring a system).
If it’s not literally eternal, then it’s a working cycle which can be used and be more efficient.
EDIT: I’ve realized that the thing I’m remembering was written about fast-neutron reactors, which most are not, so you are right usually. It’s actually funny that Russia makes more ecologically clean reactors than USA. Stupid, but funny.
China is indeed a great example of what actual transition from fossil fuels looks like. China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country right now because they realize that renewables like solar and wind are insufficient on their own.
Stop pretending that nuclear is squishy fat face spongebob meme.