You misspelled misspell 🤪

Well, I’m not screaming, but you’re pretty much a void.
If you cared, you could’ve provided one name or link.
Yeah, I’m gonna ignore you too, because you have nothing to offer but ramblings.

Sure, go on claiming stuff while shifting the burden of “homework” on others instead of proving your claims as that sounds like a perfectly scientific approach, lol…
You may be able to fool others with your argument from authority (“science says…”), but please allow me once more to ask you for specific links to your claims.
If you can’t/won’t provide them I fear it’s more like you are the one going silent or burying your head in the sand.
So what’s it gonna be?

there are reactors which can literally use the waste from other reactors

In theory or in practice? If in practice, please name/link them.

Do you have working solutions for carbon emissions?

Until you showed me the reactors that use nuclear waste from other reactors, I call it the bullshit that carbon capture is - greenwashing to continue with the harmful processes.
We need to avoid carbon emissions and nuclear waste. Period.

You are ignorant. Period, end of. I’m tired of hearing ignorant and anti-science people spreading missinfo while pretending to care about science and facts.

Do you know how you sound?
Link to the science or stfu.

Some of the hardware sold under their name is/was quite ok.
I’m not sure who designed and created that stuff, though.

I’m laughing and close to crying, though I’m not sure whether from parallels to my work I get reminded of or from finding it hilarious.
I suppose it’s a bit from both.
Thank you for that story I wasn’t aware of! Considering the mentioned hardware and software I suppose it’s around 30 years old?

Apparently lobbying is running deep in Germany…
We’ll get to a cleaner world - hopefully, eventually.

Especially because the tax cuts will be pocketed by petrol corporations at least in part instead of making gas guzzling cheaper. Who doesn’t want to increase big petrol profits at the expense of the community (because eventually the people need to pay for the tax cuts one way or another…).
Short-term your proposal makes sense - and a lot more than what seems to be done in Germany.
Long-term the only available and viable solution is making electric vehicles more attractive (by subsidizing them, the electricity to operate them and/or punishing the purchase of ICE cars).

When looking at new cars it’s easy to make a case for EV.
When buying used it’s a different thing, especially if the car is more than a few years old.
A few year old combustion engine cars are lot cheaper than comparable electric ones.
And a lot of years old EVs often have batteries with serious degradation, because battery (thermal) management was way less advanced when they were produced.
We are in trying times, but the prospect is getting better and better for EVs.

Riddle me this: where are the ultimate disposal places for nuclear waste and how much does it cost to operate them for the next tens of thousands of years - at least. Please do enlighten me about the (technically and economically) working solutions for nuclear waste. But I do agree that fossil is shit now and it was then.
And there’s zero risk of radioactive contamination when using solar (or hydro or wind), statistics my ass.
Have you ever heard of the disaster at Chernobyl? And it was close more often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Calling the certainty of nuclear waste and the risk of contamination vibes is as ridiculous as it can get.
Btw. there’s a difference between risks that affect people once and risks that affect people for centuries.

The cost of installing solar has gone down fro quite a while (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices) and depending on your region you can harvest around 1 kWh annually per 1 Watt peak power.
With the price per Watt being a fraction (2024: $0.26) of a Dollar and the life span of solar modules being in the decades, it really is a no-brainer whether you want to install them or not.

While they degrade over the years, they still retain close to 90% of their original power after 20 years and above 80% after 30 years.
They’re basically free from maintenance.
The inverters may not last that long, but even for quite big installations at home in the range of double-digit kilowatt peak with annual electric energy procution in the double-digit MWh range, they cost only a few hundred bucks.

The biggest part (by mass) of solar panels is glass, which you are aware can be recylced until the cows come home.
Another big part is aluminum. Recylcing wise the same as glass.

And if you really want to replace them after decades, the amount of material that can’t be recycled is quite small and not hazardous. Put it in the landfill.
Wind turbines are in part different as the blades typically can’t be recycled afaik. At least they’re in the category of non-hazardous waste as well and just like solar panels wind turbines last a very long time plus the towsers and the generators can very well be recylced/reused.
Alas they require more maintenance than solar.

The bigger challenge than finding cheap and not dangerous sources of electric energy at the moment appears to be the storage.
With more and more electric vehicles being on the street and each of them with capable batteries this can be a part of the storage solution alongside of grid-storage.

I choose renewables over fossil and nuclear any time of the day.

The amount of highly dangerous waste (e.g. fuel rods) may be small, but, well, it’s highly dangerous and not only because of the immediate danger from radiation, but because it can be weaponized.

I agree and understand that converting mass to energy makes absurd amounts of energy available.

Aren’t especially the fuel rods more dangerous than the uranium, that has been dug from the earth, because it’s a mix of radionuclides with in parts complex decay chains?
Doesn’t almost all uranium that has been dug up (according to wikipedia 99.3%) have a half-life of 4.463×109 years (before being used as fuel rod)?
Which made the level of radiation smaller than for radionuclides with shorter half-life that are in the used fuel rods, right?

The propaganda from fossil against the dangers of radiation doesn’t work well as long as especially coal plants emit vast amounts of dangerous radionuclides through their chimneys.

To be fair I could stomach continuing to use nuclear plants for some more time until the transformation to way more renawables and storage for electric energy has come a longer way.
After all it’s no big difference, if you add some more nuclear waste to the already quite big pile.
I’d be adamant if we were talking about starting the first nuclear reactor ever, though.
Building new nuclear reactors now seems like the wrong way given how dirt-cheap solar has become.

SailfishOS seems to run quite nicely, but has the limitations listed by you.
PostmarketOS seems to run a tad worse, but is fully open source.
Wouldn’t it make sense to support both, because otherwise there’s some danger of a chicken and egg situation:
people don’t use PostmarketOS, because it doesn’t work well enough. People don’t support PostmarketOS, because they don’t use it.
SailfishOS could pave the way for people using Linux phones and developing the need for completely open source ones after they realize the limitations of SailfishOS.
I can see that happening to me at least, because I ordered a Jolla phone with SailfishOS, which will hopefully be delivered in a few months (batch #3). I chose SailfishOS over PostmarketOS because of their Android app compatibility layer being fully aware this part isn’t open source and that I will eventually trying to get rid of that situation.
The demand for having a Linux phone soon that may be able to become my daily driver was more pressing than facing the risk of getting frustrated by PostmarketOS.

Gotta be on reddit to get banned there 🤓

https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/electricity shows a different picture regarding electrical production.
Where’s your source?
Btw. you can stop addressing/blaming me; you have no idea where I reside.

Because they don’t have to factor in the cost of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is an error that’s been made and still being made everywhere.

Winter nights are often stormy: wind turbines do their job.

I searched for info and there seems to be a clear trend according to https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix which fossil is going down, nuclear having gone to 0, total energy imports going down, renawables going up.
Do you say such a transformation can be done over night?
Looking at the USA in comparison I come to the conclusion that a lot of countries are on the right path.

Nuclear is neither able to compete with cost of production per kWh nor with speed of construction of renawables, whether people want to admit to whomever or not.

Strangely solar, wind and hydro power are cheaper to build, maintain and cheaper to make electric energy available.
Additionally they don’t create highly dangerous waste that needs to be kept safe for a veeeeeery long time and for which no working solution has been found.

What’s mostly missing is for the ongoing change towards renawables is storage, but hey, the ascent of electric vehicles comes in handy for that.

Being still in favor of nuclear today is about as tone-deaf as being in favor of still using fossil energy.

In that case this sadly applies:
with enormous amounts of power comes an enormous amount of waste…
…which sadly needs to be kept safe for several hundreds of thousands of years.
But hey, that is a problem of future generations, am I right?