I used to be anti nuclear, then I was pro, but by now I‘m back to anti. Main reason being that it‘s too slow to move the needle by now. Any new nuclear project by now - even if we’d change public sentiment and regulations today - is so time, planning and capital intensive that by the decade it goes online, it‘ll be outcompeted by overprovisioned solar roofs + battery storage even in the worst locations except maybe the arctic circle.

Without proliferation risks and however you get rid of the radiated mess.

I believed the same things in the same order (anti, pro, too slow), but I'm not anti nuclear now. Let it try and compete. We'll get a better electricity supply either way. Yeah, letting it persist wastes time and money, but so what? Every other system we have in life has a lot of waste too.

I would be strongly antinuclear if the nuclear industry somehow manages to persuade politicians to shut down wind, solar, and battery technologies, though. But that's very unlikely.

Well, Chernobyl was a bit later as far as I am aware.

Yes, 26 of April 86.

And mushrooms and wild boar in Bavarian forests are still contaminated.

I’ll take contaminated mushrooms and wild boar to climate change and the large scale disease brought on by fossil fuels. Nuclear is much safer, even accounting for these absolute outliers.

> I’ll take contaminated mushrooms and wild boar to climate change and the large scale disease brought on by fossil fuels.

It's a good thing, then, that that's a false dilemma and nuclear and/or fossil fuels are clearly not the only options on the table.

As a reference, Germany already relies on renewables to supply around 60% of their energy needs, and it's production is still ramping up.

If you look over the last 10 year, renewables have reduced the CO2 emissions considerably in Germany, reaching 50% in 2020. However, while 2020 was a record year with a huge increase vs. 2019, 2021 was back on the 2019 level, as the weather was very average.