[jcfrei]

Calling my explanation condescending seems exaggerated. The opposition against nuclear energy makes sense if Chernobyl is your reference in terms of safety. But modern reactor designs are a lot safer than Chernobyl and Fukushima. That's why I'm calling it nonsensical - the skepticism was warranted at the time but it's outdated now.

[akarma]

I agree with you that your comment wasn't condescending like the above commenter suggested, but disagree about modern reactor designs. They'll always carry this risk.

Sure, reactor design has changed since Chernobyl in various ways that help mitigate it, but what about Fukushima?

Fukushima was devastating, and the result was the NRC asking US reactors to reconfirm their flooding and earthquake preparedness. I don't know of any measures taken in European countries.

As climate change progresses, there could be some disastrous consequences, and it's unfair to say that the skepticism is outdated.

This isn't to say that nuclear is worse than coal (it's not), but that it isn't just handwaving.

[choeger]

Modern reactors are also much more expensive and take literally decades to build. Right now the option is to choose between comparatively cheap solar and wind energy (and their immense land usage) and nuclear power plants that are decades old. If we could build modern fission reactors more cheaply and quickly and if we had the water to operate many more of them they would be an option. Right now, they are not.

[xroche]

> cheap solar and wind energy

You don't have a baseline energy with wind and solar, which are not on-demand. That's the big issue.

And nuclear _can_ be cheap if (and only if) funded by states, that can borrow zero-interest loans.

[nate_meurer]

The only nuclear power plant under construction in the USA will cost nearly thirty billion dollars. That's not cheap no matter how low the interest rate.