> people have preferences with their views and overcoming them takes time. Isn't that equally true of nuclear energy? In fact more so, as renewables account f

> people have preferences with their views and overcoming them takes time. Isn't that equally true of nuclear energy? In fact more so, as renewables account for a growing share of global electricity production, while the share from nuclear has been decreasing for decades.[0] Or do you literally mean "views" as in "sight lines" / "landscapes"? That's true, but people also have preferences about whether they're within a potential nuclear exclusion zone or not. > We have a choice: nuclear or climate crisis. That seems like a false dichotomy, or you're begging the question and not really explaining why renewables aren't an option. It's like saying, "We have a choice: clean, fuelless renewables or toxic nuclear catastrophes". Thinking that nothing can go wrong with nuclear is itself an ideology, and it's one that insurance companies don't share. [0] https://www.powermag.com/report-nuclear-share-of-global-energy-production-is-lowest-since-1984/ https://www.powermag.com/report-nuclear-share-of-global-ener...