At least, they're not reactivating a coal power plant.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/27/ai-gives-coal-plant...
Coal has heavy metals and traces of radioactive materials in it. Multiply to the thousands tons and maybe they are more harmful than nuclear.
I have found this page on nuclear waste to be informative https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear...
Some points: - The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year.
Important condition being "if the used fuel is recycled".
To quote from the article on recycling:
"Although some countries, most notably the USA, treat used nuclear fuel as waste, most of the material in used fuel can be recycled. Approximately 97% – the vast majority (~94%) being uranium – of it could be used as fuel in certain types of reactor. Recycling has, to date, mostly been focused on the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as these elements can be reused in conventional reactors. This separated plutonium and uranium can subsequently be mixed with fresh uranium and made into new fuel rods.
Countries such as France, Japan, Germany, Belgium and Russia have all used plutonium recycling to generate electricity, whilst also reducing the radiological footprint of their waste. Some of the by-products (approximately 4%), mainly the fission products, will still require disposal in a repository and are immobilized by mixing them with glass, through a process called vitrification."
There are various informative videos on Youtube that cover vitrification, where the remaining waste is melted with glass-forming materials at a high temperature, and the resulting matter can be safely stored in steel vats. In comparison to carbon from coal, the volume is miniscule.
Radiation from nuclear waste is constrained to steel casks in cooling ponds, and the waste can be reprocessed for use in breeder reactors instead of letting it sit.
Nuclear 'waste' is just waiting to become new nuclear 'fuel' in a fast neutron or 'breeder' reactor. Treated this way the volume of nuclear waste can be reduced by 90% while the remaining highly radioactive waste only needs to be stored for some hundreds of years instead of thousands due to its much shorter half life. It also extends the viability of nuclear fission (as opposed to fusion) by a factor of 10 by producing new fissionable material.
s long as nuclear fusion is not available it makes sense to further develop nuclear fission, including the 'waste' problem.
Nuclear power is in trouble because it costs too much. The other issues -- safety, waste, proliferation -- they don't make any difference. Make nuclear much cheaper and we'd build much more of it. Improve any of those other metrics without making it cheaper and it will go nowhere.
Cost also matters because in any situation where choices have to be made between alternatives, you need a way to evaluate the tradeoffs. This can only be done by reducing the alternatives to a metric that can be compared, and that metric is in units of some currency. Even human life is reduced to a dollar value when evaluating choices, the so-called "statistical value of a human life".
Nuclear power is expensive because it is supposed to so expensive not to be viable, not because of inherent problems with nuclear power. If the same regulatory burden had been placed on e.g. wind and solar - treat every turbine as a one-off project in need of approval, use land use approval procedures to stall construction, put a turbine blade recycle burden on the turbine owner, etc - those power sources would be just as expensive and unviable. The same goes for coal, oil and gas plants, hydropower installations - which are starting to be treated similarly where I live (Sweden) since the 'green' politicos decided they don't like small-scale power hydro plants - and any other power source. Regulations can make or break a power source, in case of nuclear it seems to be hell-bent on breaking it.
Nuclear isn't competitive anywhere. Even in China, vastly more renewables are being installed (even taking into account capacity factors.) If the putative excuse you are desperately depending on there is so powerful it applies universally, even in non-democracies, what chance is there it could be overcome?
The same regulatory burden isn't placed on wind/solar because there's no need for it there. Wind and solar are not subject to low probability, very high cost accident scenarios that are the driver for nuclear regulation. And, wind/solar have the advantage of being highly redundant, not being grouped into monolithic units with higher internal interdependency. This makes the renewables far less dependent on extreme reliability of components and their connections, and far less dependent on the skill and consistency of labor and those overseeing construction.
Wind and solar are fine until they are not and then what? Gas-fired plants are denounced because they emit scary CO₂, not to mention coal and oil. What are you going to use when the sun is absent and the wind is down? If geography allows for it hydropower is a good option, it also adds the potential for energy storage (pumped hydro) when the sun and wind are cooperating. Many countries lack such geography and in countries where it is available 'green' politicos sometimes make it hard to use this option - this is true for Sweden where the 'environmental party' (miljöpartiet) has been pushing for the removal of small-scale water turbines. What is left to provide the base load when renewable sources are not available? Nuclear is one of these options with the caveat that the high expense of building nuclear generators in combination with the relatively low cost of actually running these installations means that nuclear power stations are only viable if and when they can be run at full capacity 24/7. Given that the backup base load capacity has to be large enough to actually provide the base load and that a nuclear 'backup' option only is viable if it can run at full capacity this means that additional power sources like wind and solar will take up the role of providing extra capacity instead of base load capacity. If and when long-term - think 'months' instead of 'hours' - energy storage from renewable sources (other than hydro which already has this capacity) becomes available this situation will change but until such a time there is a need for a reliable 24/7 base load generation capacity. Given that fossil sources - gas, coal and oil - have been declared to be existential threats to 'the planet' what is left is hydro and nuclear. Hydro is great when it can be used but it is not an option in the flatlands. Nuclear, then, is the remaining option.
Notice I did not use any expletives? Try to do the same and you have a better chance of convincing me I'm wrong and you're right. You may be interested to know I built my own solar infrastructure here on our farm, 15 kW capacity, prepared for high-voltage storage. Since I built it we have only seen negative electricity bills, i.e. we sell more than we buy. I'm not what you'd call a 'nuclear bro', whatever that may be but I do appreciate the fact that there's power to be had from the grid when the sun is gone (which it is for about 20 hours per day) and the wind is down (similar in winter).