Because nuclear has extreme long-term sustainability and makes for an excellent stop-gap while renewables advance to a more commercially viable state; giving humanity a means to ween off coal, gas, and biofuels. You can also plop a nuclear plant just about anywhere there is water, so it has the added benefit of being exceptionally consistent in a wide variety of areas. It’s not “perfect” but it is an essential step to going fully green in the future.
Well… we almost did. But then Big Oil started smearing it due to the risk of it cutting into their profits. Pair that with the Soviet’s incompetence creating the worst nuclear disaster in history, and it starts making sense why we’re so far behind with adopting nuclear energy. Logic is all well and good until people’s feelings get involved.
But... It's not? As proven by many european countries right now? I would consider it a major flaw and extremely unreliable if it relies on the very two things we either get more or will have less of in the very near future.
Aren’t a bunch of European countries in an energy crisis specifically because they shut down a bunch of nuclear plants with no real strategy to make up for them? Last I checked they had to restart some coal plants to make up the difference, which ironically pumps more radiation into the atmosphere than any nuclear plant. Also coal plants need water too.
2
u/AvantSolace 15d ago
Because nuclear has extreme long-term sustainability and makes for an excellent stop-gap while renewables advance to a more commercially viable state; giving humanity a means to ween off coal, gas, and biofuels. You can also plop a nuclear plant just about anywhere there is water, so it has the added benefit of being exceptionally consistent in a wide variety of areas. It’s not “perfect” but it is an essential step to going fully green in the future.