> either Nuclear or nothing I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. > isn't "either Nuclear or climate dis

> either Nuclear or nothing I've never heard that. More like everything that can help fill the gap, including nuclear. > isn't "either Nuclear or climate disaster" a false dillema? That's a false dilemma you've brought from somewhere else, not from this discussion, but the reason "either nuclear or climate disaster" is nonsensical is because global warming is happening already. The extent to which it happens will depend on how fast we can reduce our carbon emissions. If adding nuclear power into the mix helps us act faster and decrease the amount of warming that we ultimately experience, then we have to weigh that benefit against the risks. There's a taboo against weighing nuclear risk against any other kind of risk, but that is a relic of a different time when nuclear accidents were the worst thing we could imagine. Nuclear isn't the scariest monster under the bed anymore. Global warming is going to result in global human suffering on a grand scale. We have to compare.