[nv-vn]

Being anti-nuclear is pretty much accepting the status quo though. Modern nuclear power is much, much more sustainable than coal, scales very well, and is very safe. If you believe in a quick solution for energy issues then you shouldn't halt all nuclear development and leave fossil fuels for the next couple decades.

[nl]

Being anti-nuclear is pretty much accepting the status quo though.

Elon Musk would disagree.

If you believe in a quick solution for energy issues then you shouldn't halt all nuclear development and leave fossil fuels for the next couple decades.

Nuclear plants take 30 years at least to get through planning and building. Gas fired plants or pump solar can be deployed within a year, Wind + Solar in even less time.

[wiz21c]

Also there was an interesting view on (against) nuclear by Naomi Klein :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLRikyCRu54

I like nuclear, but her view makes a lot of sense to me.

[toomuchtodo]

Nuclear will never be able to compete with renewables on cost or deployment speed. It’s dead tech for anything other than space probes and military uses.

[nv-vn]

How? Nuclear tech is already much more developed than other renewables and it's incredibly efficient. The cost of solar is much higher than the cost of nuclear. Hydroelectric and wind are both lower, but they also require certain geography and can't be used anywhere. Nuclear is not dead tech at all, most of France's power comes from nuclear.

[nl]

France is closing at least some its nuclear power stations (and has no plans to build new ones): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-nuclear/france-to-clo...

(Also, nuclear is not a renewable by an sensible measure)

[distances]

Nuclear is very slow to build in the Western world. Finland is already in their 12th year building Olkiluoto 3