[konspence]

False dichotomy of saying we have the consequences of climate change OR we have a few Chernobyl like incidents.

We don’t need to choose between these options. We can avoid climate change without nuclear energy

[lisper]

> We can avoid climate change without nuclear energy

How?

[jacquesm]

Massive investments in renewables, capping your personal energy budget to something reasonable rather than what you can afford from a financial perspective, aiming for energy neutrality in buildings (doable, I've seen demonstration setups in the early 2000's).

And even then: we can no longer avoid climate change, you can take that to the bank. The very best we can do is limit the impact of the climate change that is inevitable now.

[goatlover]

That's easy to say, but how do we accomplish it without nuclear?

[runarberg]

I can just as easily ask: “how do we accomplish it with nuclear?”

The answer—off course—is the same in either case. We build the infrastructure. Renewables and nuclear both require a tremendous amount of infrastructure. Much of this infrastructure would even be the same in either case since we need to move from fossil fuel power to electricity (e.g. electrify rail lines, build high speed train, etc.)

There is off course difference in the electricity generation. Nuclear relies on building really big and expensive plants in locations far away from the consumption. Each design is unique and will take a while from plan to delivery. Renewables on the other hand, have the benefits of diversity of design. It can be distributed and centralized, build far away or close to consumption.

It seems to me that if you want to avoid the climate disaster, doing it without nuclear is actually the easier/more realistic option.