That has an easy and uncomfortable answer: to check that all registered voters are actually citizens. And this is why Democrat run states refuse to share that database, because it might show they have non-citizens voting. I guess the same could be said about Republican run states, but those seem like they have a lower rate of illegal immigrants.
Requiring voters have identification is very controversial in the US. The Democratic party generally opposes it. Even in states requiring ID, there are almost always options to bypass it (by signing an affadavit, for example), and in almost no case does an ID prove citizenship - the US doesn't actually have a "US citizen database" anywhere, and people can be legal citizens with a right to vote with no ID.
Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of power, if not the cleanest period.
It requires least mining and materials over lifecycle vs any alternative per KWh. It requires least land. It's final waste volume is similar to renewables while both sectors do create toxic waste that must be stored forever (used fuel in case of nuclear and forever toxic chemicals like arsenic/lead in case of renewables)
Saying nuclear is dirty as hell means you either are ill informed or spreading lies on purpose
To give an example with Germany, probably being outpaced only by Austria in hate for nuclear power. Germans are concerned about small amounts of nuclear waste that will be stored in deep geo stable facilities (just like onkalo, soon fosmark, terradura and alikes) but germans are perfectly fine having the biggest near surface facility for storing forever toxic and dangerous chemicals on the planet, Herfa Neurode.
Not just that, many are unaware that having a repository longterm is still a must even if they don't have nuclear power at all, due to medical and research sectors
Those guys in nirs are clearly some wannabe antinuclear influencers which are concerned about nuclear supply chain and it's overall impact but are fine with ren supply chain with even bigger impact. They seem to be concerned about CO2 impact of nuclear due to concrete but fail to mention lifecycle data per kwh as in links I've provided. They are concerned about radioactive waste but not concerned about other toxic chemicals like arsenic. They are concerned about tritium when it's a low level emitter which you can drink and occurs naturally due to the sun. Most releases of tritium, including in Fukushima are below WHO limits.
They are even concerned about some french units going offline during summer due to heat, but fail to mention even then France is top net exporter on the continent, avg heat impact affecting about 0.18% of production per year. They also fail to mention this is happening in units without cooling towers and edf isn't fixing it precisely because there's no financial value- France is exporting like crazy in this period - can check the data this summer on energy charts for confirmation. The 'article' is written in a childish manner by someone cherry picking everything to confirm own bias
I heavily recommend you to look at this topic pragmatically instead of listening to some influencers like in your link or even greenpeace which did even more damage to the environment. Germany now is suffering due to such antinuclear movements. Not only more people died due to coal still being used, but existing nuclear fleet was cheapest firm power on the grid based on merit order data, while receiving significantly less subsidies than renewables. In fact, per official bundestag inquiry and later a parliament inquiry in Bavaria, nuclear in Germany didn't receive special subsidies for production at all, unlike renewables with EEG, which alone already outpaced the cost of all french nuclear fleet
And naming me a polluter just confirms your bias and unwillingness to be informed about the topic, only to attach labels to people with different point of view
reply