Aawww. See! So we DO have some things in common then!
But in addition to YOUR ignorance you also like overstepping boundaries (I've set repeatedly) and insulting strangers on the internet.
Just because your to limited to see beyond your worship of nuclear power, doesn't mean, others are ignorant.

You're familiar with the dead horse theory?

Your horse is dead, Lenny.

You're not willing to factor in all relevant information (and we didn't even start to talk about Riskmanagement) to understand why it is dead and I'm NOT the one teaching you.

Feel free to leave me alone!

So yeah. That is what I mean with "half truths". You *technically* are not wrong!
You just present only a certain part of the whole story...
So I really LOVE to take you up on your offer and must remind you, that YOU contacted ME. So please: go back where you came from.
BYEEE, have a nice life!

And then specify your claim: "ALL materials used for a whole year...".
"ALL material?" What does that include?

Externalizing costs is a common way of obscuring the real costs.

(It's so convenient, when Nature is a free commodity, isn't it?)

Excuse me? Who is getting personal, when called out?
So start with this:
How much contaminated waste is stored per year and NP? Not only the radioactive fraction, the combined amount of contaminated material.

conveniently leaving out essential parts won't work here and I absolutely do not appreciate this deceptive-sales-pitch attempt with the half truths and a break in consistency mid sentence.

Wellwellwell *surprise* you're not the only MSc here.

Eventhough, I'm empathetic, that you'll unfortunately chose the wrong line of work as a power plant operator, but still: you're argumentative strategy might work with others, but the attempt to "redefine" what factors to include in your cost/risk vs. Benefit analysis,

All this downsides added up would need to be better than any other energy source in addition to the actually only logical choice: to finally start reducing our energy consumption in the first place (the starting problem all along.)

The material needs to be processed before use. Shipped globally. And finally stored *somewhere* when it can't be used anymore.
And we didn't even come to the comparative part of the analysis yet.

A power plant enthusiast, I see.
The question remains,
why should we build those liabilities from scratch when all those additional securities are needed only for a "not so bad" outcome?
Power plants have long lasting effects on river ecosystems. The mining for the the nuclear fuel not counted.

-Cooling towers normally don't cool the water down to the initial temp. So also this water -if fed back into the river- causes substantial problems.
-Already warm water has (obviously) lower cooling capacity.
-With future increasing probab. of droughts, there might be not enough water for cooling.

Das ist keine Diskussion, sondern eine Info:

Auf den Fakt,dass Israel sich jeden Tag dafür ENTSCHEIDET, UNSCHULDIGE hungernde Menschen zu erschiessen, mit "aber die Hamas ist böse"zu antworten,zeugt weder von hoher emotionaler Intelligenz,noch von grossem Geschichtsverständnis.

But hey: you do you