> Everything must be green, non-fossil and no nuclear in 2025. No matter where you stand on nuclear in general, you have to see the benefit of keeping existing

> Everything must be green, non-fossil and no nuclear in 2025. No matter where you stand on nuclear in general, you have to see the benefit of keeping existing plants operational from both a geopolitical and carbon emission perspective, no? As a mostly pro-nuclear person, I can still empathize with people who believe in a long term phase-out. I am however genuinely baffled that there is a large portion of environmentalists who refuse to even give an inch to the argument that the timing of doing so now is incredibly problematic.