> This statement has no basis. We've had multiple awful nuclear accidents and the world keeps turning. You hadn't forgotten I was writing about severe accident

> This statement has no basis. We've had multiple awful nuclear accidents and the world keeps turning. You hadn't forgotten I was writing about severe accidents within half a sentence, hadn't you? > We are headed towards a much worse scenario of climate change if we don't effectively decarbonize. I'm quite aware of that. And if I considered stopgap nuclear realistically possible, maybe I'd support it. > That's a thing anti-nuclear institutions have been saying for sure but it doesn't hold even a little water. France, for example, decarbonized almost all of its electricity with nuclear in 15 years. Building nuclear is not even the hard part. Deciding to do so is. Changing public opinion to favour nuclear won't happen in time so there's no point. The decision to decarbonize using renewables has been made, there's actually no need to even discuss it further. > When you take a look at achieved decarbonization rates per capita, nuclear is at the top. The available technology and political climate has changed since then.