[howlin]

> We need more gas and oil fast.

We need more reliable and consistent base energy in overabundance fast. Nuclear can do this without creating a climate catastrophe. Even if you need energy dense chemical fuels, nuclear energy can be used to create these without net climate impact.

Hydrocarbon fossil fuels are the addiction that modern society needs to break from. Nuclear is an excellent "methadone" to ease the transition. But society seems to be split between denying there is a problem at all, or insisting we're all ready to go "cold turkey". Neither approach is reasonable to bet the continuance of human civilization on.

[Schroedingersat]

> We need more reliable and consistent base energy in overabundance fast.

> Nuclear can do this

It's not reliable, there's no overabundance (or even a way to match pace with renewables), and it's certainly not fast. New mines get delayed even more than new reactors.