So you came up with one. I'm amazed. Here is your answer. Nuclear power is a joke. Because it is dangerous. It can produce radioactive byproducts that will remain dangerous for longer than humans have existed. And things may not go wrong with them often. But when they do there isn't enough money in the world to clean up the mess. The two main examples are Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Okay, so you know nothing about nuclear power beyond the usual environmentalist-Leftist rhetoric and propaganda.
Let's start with "radioactive byproducts." Virtually everything produced as a byproduct of nuclear fission is an alpha or beta emitter. Those are only a danger if you eat or breath them. Stored in long-term stable containers, the only thing you need is a water-cooling jacket on the container, and not that much of one, to deal with the residual energy produced from decay of the fission fragments. The danger is minimal and less than many other industrial hazards.
Fukushima was the result of an unprecedented natural disaster. Even so, it is being cleaned up as I write this. No problem there, just another industrial hazardous material clean-up.
Chernobyl was the result of a thoroughly corrupt and unaccountable government building an unsafe reactor design, operating it in an unsafe manner, in a facility that was unsafe because of the aforementioned corruption. Chernobyl used a graphite moderated, fast fission, reactor design used NOWHERE else in the world commercially because it was known to be unsafe.
The Soviet Union used it because it was cheap to build, and you got a twofer from it in that it produced weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct of operation. The contractors building the plant short sheeted the materials and work on everything they could to maximize their profit on the black market in the USSR. They paid off the government inspectors to let that happen.
That's what happens when you have unaccountable government agencies running things. The EPA in the US with the Gold King mine in Colorado is the exact same thing only with a different part of industry.
So, Chernobyl is a pathetically, unrealistic, and shitty example of nuclear power usage for commercial purposes. It has ZERO relevance to usage in countries using PWR and BWR systems (Fukushima was a BWR system).
As for "when they do there isn't enough money in the world to clean up the mess," this is simply illiterate bullshit on your part. The worst-case scenario for a nuclear accident in the US commercial power industry was Three Mile Island (TMI). They did everything wrong there. Yet, nobody died as result. Nobody even got cancer. It has been completely cleaned up at a cost of just shy of $1 billion taking 12 years to complete.
Compare that to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That cost $8.8 billion, with 12 deaths, and numerous people getting exposure to various chemicals that potentially would cause health issues or cancer. It is actually ongoing since 2010.
I would suggest you stop commenting on nuclear power as you don't know shit about it.
Solar power is the way to go. And solar panels are getting more efficient all the time. I will show you a picture of the U.S. The area shown in yellow is the area of solar panels it will take to power the U.S. Both day and night. I will show you another picture of the U.S. It shows the total area of the U.S. in green that it would take to power the WORLD! And they last 30 to 40 years.
No, it isn't. It will never get more efficient than the watt density of sunlight. It will never produce power when the sun isn't shining on it. Your pictures are irrelevant. IRRELEVANT!
Here's the reality you and solar proponents missed.
You need to produce 100 kw of power for 24 hours everyday. In order to do this, you need:
100 kw of solar panels to produce power when the sun is shining.
Additional panels to make up for that period early and late in the day when they are less than fully efficient.
Additional panels to produce 100 kw worth of power for periods of darkness or poor weather.
A storage system to hold the power produced for when the solar panels aren't working.
Some means to dump excess generation when demand is less than production and the storage system is full.
Short version: You need 5 kw of installed solar panels to reliably produce 1 kw of power for 24 hours. You need a minimum of 16 hours of installed storage capacity in addition to that.
What invariably happens is the cost of all that runs, for your scenario of 100% solar power powering everything into the tens of trillions of dollars. Then you tack on tens of trillions more for a "smart grid." In the end, either electricity becomes unaffordable or the nation goes bankrupt trying to use solar.
eer reviewers often never see the raw data.This is especially true for vaccine studies. We’re told to “trust the science,” but the critical data needed to verify that science is locked away.Take the Danish study on vaccine safety. Its conclusions are touted, but its de-identified data is hidden. Independent experts can’t check the work.Even worse? The CDC’s premier database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), was moved to a private group to shield it from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.Now, access is controlled. Studies must pass a CDC "clearing process," creating obvious selection bias. Only "policy-friendly" results get published.This isn't science. It's gatekeeping.You can't reproduce results.You can't challenge conclusions.You can only trust.Demanding data isn't denialism. It's the foundation of scientific integrity.