| It's not the only option and it -is- better than coal or gas. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are going to be important parts of the mix (perhaps even the dominant parts in many places of the world) but all have unsolved challenges that are much more difficult than nuclear. Storage ofcourse, the world is almost already maxed out on what hydro it can build, geothermal is only viable in very few places in the world. Solar is gated on Chinese polysilicate and cell production unless some other country wants to step up and make what is needed. Don't make good the enemy of perfect. Nuclear is a very good option to killing off fossil fuels in addition to the obvious renewables. It also provides key features that they don't, like being almost entirely independent of weather and geography, good in places like Japan that are hard to build other renewables after they max out on hydro. They have no space for solar, wind is hard to build with their terrain, off-shore wind is hard because they have too many tsunamis and adverse conditions etc. Renewables good, nuclear also pretty good, coal and oil bad. If nuclear is replacing coal and oil we should be happy, if we are building it -instead- of cheaper renewables despite having the correct sites, enough storage and enough supply then I would be against it but we aren't. The economics of renewables should put them at a consistent cost advantage to nuclear except the cases where they aren't viable - where nuclear should be able to slot in. |