I’d be interested in the economics of building an artificial hydroelectric storage facility over those of building and running a mine for storing nuclear waste.

Germany is not the only country that’s having problems with permanent waste storage. Most countries have not even started dealing with this issue and are still using interim storage solutions.

Not really, you can build hydroelectric storage facilities.

The nuclear storage facilities here in Germany are already being shut down because they’re in danger of leaking into the groundwater.

You said “it’s much safer” in your original comment, which you removed in the edit.

The source you’ve linked shows it’s marginally safer on a death per KW/h rate, true, while being substantially more expensive and comes with the unsolved problem of dealing with toxic waste.

Pumped hydroelectric storage exists and is easily achieved. What about the storage options for nuclear waste?

It’s not, a person has already provided a study proving you wrong.

Edit: You’ve changed your comment completely with that edit.

Right so why shouldn’t we just use power sources where we don’t have an issue with massively toxic waste products later on in the process?

Edit: And which are also a lot cheaper.

You’re saying nuclear power is responsible for less deaths and sicknesses than for example… wind?

Donald Trump’s views on economics have not changed in decades and his tariffs are in line with what the guy has been publicly saying since the 80s.

But yeah that’s not the point I was making.

Yeah man they really saw this tariff stuff coming earlier than anyone else when they started developing the remaster 2-3 years ago.

Imagine if capital G Gamers actually enjoyed playing games instead of nonstop bitching on online forums.