[qqqwerty]

I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board.

> we really don't know what else would

We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up.

> We know it would solve the problem

No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not.

Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good.

* Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.

[nradov]

That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.