Which each have their drawbacks. Just as an example, though not representative of the majority, what do you do about months of no sun in the Arctic Circle for solar power? There is no single solution to this problem. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels by far, and we should not just throw it away out of fear.

I know it's a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we're talking waste products. It's not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn't let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

We can bury it in the ground and it will literally turn into lead. How are you doing with carbon emissions? Got a fix?

Launch it into the sun or Florida

It’s like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it’s still some years, if not decades, away.

Allow me to share the most frustrating graph I have ever seen

We could just use energy to fill a big hole with water and put plastic wrap over top until we need to get the energy back then we pump it through a dam.

Then profit.

Problem solved

Power lines would still mean we need energy on demand though wouldn't it. And if we can transport energy from an area like a huge solar array in the Sahara to Kazakhstan or China it would be better. I was just raising it as an off thought like maybe theres more ways to think about solving this problem than just building plants. What level of storage ability could we have that would let us build a large solar array in the Sahara to power Africa and Europe vs just building more plants. I think our end goal will be energy storage and like you brought up transport/transmission. I think that because I think we have energy production pretty well solved