Good for China. I hope it works out for them. China seems politically stable and already has nuclear weapons so there's really no additional risk here. I'm happ

Good for China. I hope it works out for them. China seems politically stable and already has nuclear weapons so there's really no additional risk here. I'm happy to sit back and learn from their mistakes. I'm honestly surprised at the rose-coloured glasses many on HN view nuclear with. Like even if the US was all-nuclear, the change in global emissions wouldn't be that high because the US accounts for <20% of global emissions and probably only a quarter of that is from power generation. But here's another factor: if the US wasn't a consumer of fossil fuels, the only thing that changes is it becomes cheaper for everyone else and that probably increases consumption to the point where the emissions are near net-neutral. And for that we have a bunch of reactors with terrible failure modes and unanswered questions about long-term reprocessing and/or storage of enrichment byproducts, the same for waste and we'd need to trust governments and corporations to manage it all. The resistance to wearing a piece of fabric on your face while out in public by a significant portion of the population should tell you everything you need to know here: no amount of altruism will solve climate change. Economics will. My bet is the long term future here is solar not nuclear. That's a deep topic. Those pointing out that sometimes it's night aren't factoring in expected improvements in energy storage tech nor thinking long term enough. You put the collectors in space and eventually run transmission lines to the ground. And no, I'm not kidding. If you feel like going down this rabbit hole, look up orbital rings.