Some key points:

• nuclear causes fewer deaths, both animal and human alike
• nuclear takes up far less space, and therefore destroys far less of the environment compared to solar farms, hydro, or wind farms
• nuclear is stable and not an intermittent source, no issues with grid storage, unlike renewables, which currently solve this with fossil peaker plants
• nuclear is hard to turn off so to meet fluctuating demand solely on it, you'd need an excess of nuclear, which is a waste
• nuclear excess could encourage other use of electricity, such as electric heating or transport, however
• nuclear when it does go bad, goes really bad, mostly in that a large area has to be abandoned for a long long time (historically still fewer deaths than renewables per unit of energy produced tho)
• nuclear can cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons
• nuclear is a lot harder to spin up, requires extensive education and is hard and takes a long time to build a plant, compared to renewables
• all that nuclear waste and no plan other than shove it in somewhere, in a mountain, and keep it secret, keep it safe.

Yay or Nay?

What say you?

Instructions are in the this ticket: https://github.com/dracula/freecad/iss...

Perovskite structures are notorious for breaking down very rapidly in real-world use. Now a research team from Princeton University has developed a process for overcoming that problem, making perovskite a real competitor to existing silicon PV technology.