[physicles]

Gave you an upvote not because I necessarily agree, but to counter the downvotes.

I agree that it’s clear we need more nuclear, but could you explain why solar and wind are dangerous compared to nuclear? Did you mean that all the attention on solar and wind, which can’t be scaled fast enough and must be paired with grid storage, has screwed us when it comes to addressing climate change?

Also, calling solar and wind inefficient isn’t precise enough. By what metric are you judging them to be inefficient?

[kulahan]

Appreciated.

When I say more dangerous, it’s just a pretty simple calculation - per watt of energy, how many people have been injured/killed when producing energy via a given source. Coal is incredibly dangerous, as is gas by this metric. Nuclear is far and above the safest when calculating in this specific way.

Solar and wind are inefficient, by my definition, because they require large portions of land and cannot run with highly predictable outputs at all times. As a result, you need other solutions to complete the story - larger farms, more farms, large batteries, grids that easily transfer energy long distances, etc.

Nuclear is able to sidestep all of those problems, especially with the relatively recent advent of small modular reactors (SMRs).