>>14139003>cleanestBecause CO2 emissions are incredibly low, they take up a very small land area, and they barely affect the local environment while in normal operation.
>best thing we've gotBecause unlike wind and solar it has high production capacity and works consistently regardless of weather conditions, both of which are necessary to completely replace coal, oil, and natural gas.
>hate it and want it goneWay too many to list, but it mostly falls under one of two categories: accidents and final storage.
For accidents, people who don't know shit about nuclear power usually talk about Chernobyl because they don't actually understand just how awful that design was and that even at the time no sensible country was building them that way. Others like to talk about how nuclear is never 100% safe, which is technically true, but also applies to everything we do in modern society. If we applied that standard to, say, flood protection then we'd all live in bunkers in the fucking alps.
When if comes to final storage of nuclear waste, there are a few different concerns. Where to actually put it (people living in the area might not like having nuclear waste in their backyard), whether the containment could break on its own from corrosion or something, and whether future humans might somehow have forgotten it's there, discover it, and then get horribly sick. But these arguments are a little moot since we already need that final storage anyways, and the actual volume of material is pretty small.
