If you want critical thought, you respond to the point that renewables take longer to develop (the infra not the tech), and that nuclear "buys us time". > Ther

If you want critical thought, you respond to the point that renewables take longer to develop (the infra not the tech), and that nuclear "buys us time". > There is not a carbon-free grid model out there that uses nuclear and in what timescale can these carbon-free models be developed? We probably need a carbon-negative model to reverse existing CO2 damage. > Nuclear will not be the backbone of any future grid for at least 50 years France has declared it will wants to cut nuclear to 50% of the grid by 2035, it's current share is 70%. So what does this statement mean? > Floating wind is falling cost all the time. Nuclear's cost is going up all the time. The cost of energy production, or the total cost of infra? Part of the reason nuclear is growing is lack of funding. Turns out, you need to keep building nuclear power stations for people to think a degree in nuclear engineering is a good idea. And you need to keep building them to keep power-plant-building corps in business and innovating/improving efficiency.