[isanengineer]

I don't really care about Oliver Stone, but as a longtime climate activist (and engineer) I'm glad to see any publicity promoting nuclear. I can't take seriously any proposal for reducing fossil fuel generation that doesn't involve nuclear power. The Messmer Plan in France shows that this can be done in a relatively short time frame. They built huge capacity between the 1980s and 2000s and still get 72% of their electricity from nuclear today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...

Meanwhile Germany decided to phase out their nuclear generation over decades due to environmental concerns, and ended up re-commission old coal plants to meet demand. The full story of this is complicated and is also thanks to the current gas crisis in Europe, but the fact remains that the decision to phase out nuclear has lead to more carbon emissions, not less.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-...

I think the US view of nuclear power has been really complicated by the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, where nuclear power was (not unreasonably) linked to the military industrial complex. That said, I think the largest obstacle to nuclear power in the US is the federal structure of the government. The US still doesn't have a centralized location for the long-term storage of nuclear waste thanks to Harry Reid killing the Yucca Mountain project in the late 2000s. No state representative has any incentive to allow a facility like that to be constructed in their state, and the federal government is unable or unwilling to force the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

I'm heartened to see climate activists slowly but surely starting to take nuclear seriously. I want to plug Emergency Reactor as doing to difficult work of trying to turn the tide of public perception and make nuclear central to the climate change discourse. https://www.emergencyreactor.org/

[ZeroGravitas]

> I can't take seriously any proposal for reducing fossil fuel generation that doesn't involve nuclear power.

I think about 10% nuclear is a reasonable prediction midpoint (coincidentally the same as it is now, but the total generation will be higher), but that means I think no nuclear is about as likely as 20% nuclear and I take the "mostly nuclear" prediction from the trailer even less seriously than I would a no nuclear plan.

[greenthrow]

Nuclear takes way too long to come online. If we decide today to build 40 new reactors around the world it will be decades before they are online and operational.

Nuclear is also way too expensive. Building those 40 reactors would cost way, way more than building equivalent production in wind and solar.

Renewables and storage are cheaper, faster and yes, safer. There is absolutely no rational reason to keep building new nuclear reactots.

[otikik]

Renewables don’t work at night or when there’s no wind or water. When they don’t work energy has to come from “somewhere else”.

Besides nuclear, the only other option is fossil fuels.

Putting renewables “in opposition to” nuclear (instead of “in addition to”) is just advocating for more fossil fuel.

[frafra]

IPCC AR6 synthesis report shows otherwise: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/static/2f8a061eaef8dbfc9c.... The graph considers the effect of various actions and technologies in reducing emissions before 2030, and the estimated costs. Nuclear is there, even if building new reactors would have a limited effect before 2030, but we would still need to further reduce emissions afterwards.

[Overtonwindow]

As a former government bureaucrat, the reason why it takes such a long time to come online is because of bureaucratic red tape. The anti-nuclear side of the debate uses these regulatory hurdles to essentially halt any nuclear progress.

[vfclists]

More blatant untruths by the shills for the carbon based fuel industry, also known as the Greens.

Korea averages less than 5 years and the Japanese have managed one in less than four.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/10/123_215869...

As usual a corrupt Federal bureaucracy captured by the oil and gas industry applies laws which allows the them to make up new rules and conditions as they go along.

In any other industry experience gained from earlier builds would go into improving future builds