Nuclear energy is a terrible idea in both a physically (climate change) and socially destabilizing world.

Even Gen4 proliferation-resistant reactors still represent a lethal threat in the event of a release of fissionable materials into the local environment. Building a nuclear reactor without a cast-iron guarantee that there will be a supply of engineering staff, components, materials and clear strong regulation to keep it running safely is a surefire path to disaster.

Whilst the technology and physics behind it are well understood, we have shown time and again in a few short decades of utilizing this technology that we lack the responsibility in our administrative structures to properly manage the risks.

It would take just one full-on reactor meltdown or disaster to poison an entire continent. We have consistently demonstrated that we cannot responsibly assume that risk, which is why there is opposition to nuclear power.

If you want to avoid bad things from happening, do not deploy a dangerous technology and instead focus on what we can do. Renewables are more than capable of providing for our energy needs, and the big kicker here is that they can do so without putting the literal power “off” switch in the hands of the grid or plant operator.

For the love of everything, at least let’s stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.

Normally I’m not a “lesser of two evils” type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it’s insane people are still against it.

do not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good enough”

edit: quick addendum, I really cannot stress this enough, everyone who says nuclear is an imperfect solution and just kicks the can down the road – yes, it does, it kicks it a couple thousand years away as opposed to within the next hundred years. We can use all that time to perfect solar and wind, but unless we get really lucky and get everyone on board with solar and wind right now, the next best thing we can hope for is more time.

I don’t think we should shutter existing nuclear plants, but renewables are a better idea than new nuclear plants

Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?

Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.

I always feel like I’m taking fucking crazy pill when we talk about nuclear energy.

Are we forgetting Chernoble, 3 mile island, or even more recenlty fukishima?

Sure, nuclear energy is great, cheap and reliable… but IF something goes catastrophically wrong, like I dunno… earth quakes, hurricanes, tornados, floods, etc (IE things we can’t really plan for) you run the risk of not being able to fix it easily…

I guess I"m not a huge fan of making large swaths of the earth uninhabital if shit goes sideways.