Just Post

But both is good as well, we can do as much solar as we want and then make up the gap with nuclear.

I think solar will eventually become more effective and ubiquitous, but indeed nuclear should be the gap in the meanwhile. Unfortunately, folks on either side of the debate are dogmatic thinking it's one or the other instead of being pragmatic.

I used to be anti-nuclear, but with the rate of how bad climate change is getting, we need the nuclear power as the stop gap while we ramp up solar and other renewables. Even my boss who has an environmental degree was anti-nuclear but turned around. The vehemently anti-nuclear think we are going to build more nuke plants. Building new plants are indeed expensive, but those in the middle think we should not build more, but instead advocate not shutting down the already existing plants until other renewables catch up.

Moreover, and this is also a hard to swallow pill for many, much of the anti-nuclear sentiment has roots from Soviet disinformation campaign during the Cold War, especially in West Germany to malign nuclear energy. The Soviet Union was afraid that West Germany's civil nuclear programme might turn to a military one. That disinformation campaign still lingers in the minds of many not just in Germany but have spread across the globe.