We can do all three things at once

The number of people who still think nuclear is bad and solar / wind will make up for it is really depressing. We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago and now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes while running in fucking circles about how to save the planet. Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh

People who want nuclear plants should also vote for having a nuclear waste storage in your area if that is possible. In germany we still dont have a solution for the waste we already have and the states who want Nuclear Plants are already said no to havin a storage in their state. You cant make this shit up

I’ve got solar panels on my roof, and being Dutch windmills are in my blood. But I’m also not blind to the reality that both wind and solar will only get you so far. And there’s already a lot of opposition to wind farms - they ruin the view, endanger birds and there’s health concerns due to noise and shadow projection.

If we just build even one nuclear powerplant, we could basically just… not do wind. And we’d have pleeeenty of power for the coming energy transition, change to electric vehicles, etc.

But noooo… nuclear is scary. Especially to the people who only cite Fukushima and Chernobyl in regards to safety. That’s the same as banning air travel because of 9/11 and the Tenerife disaster. Nuclear power is safe, cheap and we owe it to the planet to use it wisely instead of more polluting alternatives.

I live in Taiwan and we are decommissioning our last 4 nuclear plants. We also scrapped a newly built nuclear plant because people just don't understand how safe new nuclear plants are. Instead 97% my stupid country is burning fossil fuel for electricity and our citizens are doing Pikachu faces because of the bad air quality.

It's even more stupid is that we are gearing up to electrify the country.... Using fossil fuels.... Which is worse for the environment.

No, absolutely decommission old and out-of-date plants to avoid anything catastrophic. There is an argument for keeping some of the ones that are there now and even building new ones, but what is happening with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is souring me on the idea of nuclear power in general. Not when a war could cause a catastrophe. You can't really war-proof every nuclear power plant.

Would you put your own money into nuclear power these days?

Exactly. It’s not about building new ones, that’s incredibly expensive with modern Western safety standards. But at least keep the ones already built running as long as it’s safe. Germany really fucked up with this due to populism

I found this story to be informative, about why Germany closed their nuclear power plants. I think that context can defuse a lot of arguments about Germany's decision.

It's just not going to happen, it's way too slow to become profitable. There are plenty of nuclear power plants in production that have been in production for 40 years that still aren't profitable.

Storage is going to have to be the thing that makes up for the instability of solar and wind, whether it be in the form of heat storage, hydrogen production, fly wheels, or some breakthrough in Battery Tech.

Every time I'm in a thread about nuclear power it's the same shit.

Y'all really have no fuckin clue how much safer it is than fossil fuels. But go ahead and keep letting the oil industry convince you otherwise.

Every dollar / euro / whatever invested in nuclear power should have been invested in real renewable energy for a bigger impact and a better sustainable transition to green energy.

It gets especially funny when you can’t use the powerplants in the summer anymore because it gets too hot for the cooling water like it has been in France.

I do think that nuclear power is necessary for the green transition. For now at least.

But two things: 1. It creates radioactive waste that will destroy storage sites for centuries to come. 2. Mining and preparing the fuel needed for the reactors is far from green.

He has a point!

Build more nuclear plants and have the road for fusion reactors. Let the power of the stars be at our fingertips

Enter the IAEA web page, there you will find that not even IAEA rhinks of nuclear energy as a replacement. Thats because uranium reserves arent infinite. Once conventional uranium mines run out of uranium, we will have to go for the non conventional ones and prices will go up the paradigm IAEA professes is nuclear is excellent as a transition techonology (they also include natural gas as a transition techonology) to a fully renewable energy market.

Also, its generally not advisable to have more than a 10% of nuclear energy.

We have to cut the demand.

The greens are principle over matter.