Did you know that coal ashes is also a bit radioactive? Contrary to the fuel of a nuclear power plant which is very radioactive but well contained, these ashes are just spread in the atmosphere during normal operation.
Your link show the opposite of what you claim. According to the main graph. Nuclear generation is not more expensive than other sources.
Also the costs at the output of the generator is one thing, but what counts is actually the cost of the useful power used. And renewables puts a lot of extra cost on the grid.
For example, as mentioned in another comment, by making all read and write `volatile`, that way, dangling pointer and out of bounds are "defined" to be memory corruption or crash, and not the compiler optimizing the code in a way that the programmer did not enticipate.
> make large areas unlivable for thousands of years
I think you are over-estimating the cost of this.
I contest the use of 'large'.
The 30km radius exclusion zone is nothing compared to the surface occupied by deserts, ice floe, or whatever of the many others existing unhinabitable places.
> and affect multiple countries and also killing a lot of people.
Because the war has been doing that already, at a even larger scale: thousands of civilians killed, many wounded, millions displaced. That's already worse than the consequences of a nuclear meltdown.
The German are uneasy because of irrational fear and exaggerated risks.
Even if the worst happen at that nuclear power plant, it will still be a small disaster compared to all the causalities that already have happened in Ukraine the last few weeks (you know: the war)
According to the Linear-no-threshold model [1], any level of radiation, no matter how small, causes cancer. According to this model, the 1,000 μsv/year of normal background radiation already cause cancer for 1% of people. And any additional dose increase the risk further.
However this model is contested. And the analysis on the cancers incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl seems to indicate that this model is flawed. The exact model is difficult to estimate because of the low number of extra cancer is lost in the noise.
Never done RISC-V, but for ARM, this is trivial, one just have to rustup the right target stdlib, and then pass --target to cargo and done.
Well, at least that's that easy if what you try to compile don't have C dependencies. For C dependencies, there is cross <https://github.com/cross-rs/cross> which I had good experiences with.
Even with less regulation, the problem is that it takes a huge amount of capital, and you need a decade or more to get return on your investment.
So it is really not that interesting for a private investor.
> For the waste we have no solution that works, except for storage, which has tons of risk
And instead, you burn coal and Gaz which creates even more waste which we can't even store. The difference is that the nuclear waste are localised near you, while the CO2 is spread globally and mostly affect warmer country we don't care about.
> So simply put, there are around 17 meteors every year that hit ground and can cause a disaster
The disaster is made worse because of nuclear infrastructure. But I don't see the point. It is already a disaster to begin with.
Look at Fukushima, the real disaster was the earthquake and tsunami that killed and destroyed lots of homes. The incident in the nuclear plant in the area did make it slightly worse, but not by much. Even though the media seem to blame the whole thing on the power plant.