It would take far more than just capturing carbon to make coal clean.

Read the second sentence of my comment.

Nuclear is cleaner than any other power option.

It’s just Oil Industry lies that make it seem “dirty”. Lies that started at the very beginning.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279723004544

Dangerous, but slightly less so than you’d think.

Unless you already know that LNT is bullshit.

Also, the evacuation of Fukushima caused far more death than any radiation exposure.

You don’t need giant 20 year plants.

Small Modular Reactors can be built and deployed much faster.

You don’t need to power an entire state with a single plant. You can scale it down to powering a single town. That’s the current push, mass production of SMRs.

Coal ash is dumped into a retaining pond by the ton.

Nuclear waster is highly controlled and produced by the pound and sealed into giant casks that can be struck by a full speed train without beaching.

The thing is, it’s not a legitimate fear.

Radiation needs respect, but it’s not the magic death sauce that Movies and the Oil industry claim it is.

We swim in a sea if radiation every moment of every day.

Extremely.

Even adding in construction and mining, it has the lowest carbon per KWh out of any option. Even Hydro comes out worse, due to the years of carbon and methane emissions from the decaying plant matter at the bottom of the newly formed lake.

Wind and solar are down there, but the mining costs and the low output per unit tend to bump the numbers.

Noted, that’s just the carbon released. There are other metrics, and nuclear tends to meet most all of them because it’s very heavily regulated.

Who knew that 5 million was 50% of 44 million?

And that’s the total population change, including deaths and all migration, regardless of destination country.