...an artifact of ignorance.
I would suggest that ignoring fossil fuel waste, the generation of which is essential to the operations of so called "renewable energy" is simply an expression of poor insight coupled with ignorance of how things work.
The challenge issued and ignored was to show that the storage of used nuclear fuel collected over the 70 years has killed as many people in that 70 year history as fossil fuel waste will kill in the next 8 hours, about 6000 people.
No one to whom I've issued this challenge has ever responded im a satisfactory way. That's because any effort to assert as much would be a lie.
I have never met a single defender of the reactionary scheme to make energy supplies on the weather, the use of mass and land intensive so called "renewable energy" who gives a rat's ass about fossil fuels, their waste, their use in war and terrorism, their effects on land, water and air, their extreme health consequences.
I never will. Everything they open their mouths to attack nuclear energy on grounds they do not apply to fossil fuels they prove as much.
Recently in this space I discussed the separation of 107Pd from palladium isotopes having even mass numbers using autoionizing Rydberg states. This is the level at which I understand the value and properties of used nuclear fuels. It cannot therefore be said that I am ignoring used nuclear fuels, said intelligently at least.
I note however that there are zero antinukes, and for that matter, zero people who know how to stop fossil fuel waste from killing people in vast numbers. The difference between the critics of clean and sustainable nuclear energy and the general bulk of humanity is that people who oppose nuclear energy don't care how many people die from fossil fuels or extreme climate conditions so long as they can imagine that somewhere someday someone might die from radiation exposure. This is not only absurd, it is immoral.
Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read