[ImJamal]

Isn't climate change supposed to cause more extreme weather? Seeing how renewables are very much reliant on weather conditions it seems best to diversify and have a clean energy source that won't be negatively impacted from the extremes.

[_aavaa_]

I guess it depends on what you mean by impacted. Wind and solar are dependent on the wind and sunshine for producing something. But nuclear is highly dependent on steady supply of cooling water to function, and the failure case for extreme events (for example a large wave hitting Japan) is much worse.

[ImJamal]

Wind relies on wind and can be damaged with increased tornadoes and hurricanes and other storms. They also have to have their blades locked into place during strong enough winds.

Solar requires sunlight so increased storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail, etc can damage them and cause them to be less effective.

Hydro requires water so increased draughts will cause them to be less effective.

Nuclear requires cooling water which can be harder to deal with.

My point is that if you are expecting extreme weather it is best to diversify. I am not saying that nuclear will be immune to everything, only that it provides an alternative which we shouldn't ignore.

[Herz]

> the failure case

The possibility of failure should be contextualized with data. Gen 3 reactors are statistically orders of magnitude safer than any other power source, per GWh produced. Demonstrating how they are extremely safer than any other energy source.

Page 171 Chapter 3.5: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1...

> (for example a large wave hitting Japan) is much worse.

Mmh, like the 0-1 victims of Fukushima?

Nuclear power plants, just with Fukushima have demonstrated their tremendous reliability. We're talking about a 60-year-old reactor, which in the face of extreme conditions managed to minimize any kind of harm to humans.