Well the problem is we really need to cut emissions at least in half by 2030, so less than 10 years (and even that's probably not enough to stop some pretty awf

Well the problem is we really need to cut emissions at least in half by 2030, so less than 10 years (and even that's probably not enough to stop some pretty awful shit). So if we suddenly start building 180+ nuclear plants this year (what the article says we need for the whole planet), they're unlikely to start providing any emission reduction at all until after 2030. That's part of the reason why they said in the article that they're too slow. That doesn't mean they can't be part of the solution, especially planning for 2040 and beyond, and Bill Gates mentioned in his book that he is investing some serious money into some next-gen nuclear power plants that is supposed to address some of their current issues, but they can't be the primary solution anymore (maybe they could have been 10-20 years ago if we built a lot more of them).