Yeah, I want a global solution to global warming, which nuclear isn't. I don't think it's necessary and would happily ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world.
But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.
"ban nuclear to focus on renewables if I was king of the world."
I have seen thos banged about a lot - where does the idea that banning nuclear would somehow improve our ability to build renewables come from? What is the basis for it?
'most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.'
Again, why? Why do not believe that 90% of noise about nuclear is well intentioned people seeing an alternative solution?
Nuclear is more expensive than renewables. If we spent the same money on renewables we'd get more done. It's not overly complicated.
The vast majority of people advocating for nuclear simply cannot hold in their criticism of renewables. That's because believing lies about renewables is a basic requirement for thinking nuclear is a useful solution in a world rapidly deploying renewables.
"Nuclear is more expensive than renewables. If we spent the same money on renewables we'd get more done. It's not overly complicated."
By that logic, we could be taking money people spend on casinos and spending it on renewables - we'd get more done and that money was being wasted by definition.
Budget of a country is not like budgeting your personal expenses, and we are limited by resources other than just Money. Like production facilties, pool of talent and skilled workers, natural resources, etc. Nuclear has almost no overlap with renewables when it comes to consuming real resources - so both could be used. Meanwhile money is not real, and when the banks were in danger, trillions just magically appeared overnight.
In UK main obstacle to renewables are idiots who think they own the landscape, and that their view is more important than the future of the planet -> a local group had cash in hand to build a wind turbine, and it took them 4 years to get permission to do so!
Ignoring nuclear for a moment, wind and solar both compete and complement each other. At a certain point, in a certain area, it stops making sense to spend money on wind/solar and start spending it on solar/wind instead. Because for the same money, you get more if what you want.
You could do similar for tidal power, but since it's so much worse than wind/solar in terms of efficiency/cost you basically don't build any.
Not because it's competing for steel, but because you have better option(s) for achieving the same goal.
Now, swap nuclear for tidal power and you have the same situation.
The main problem for renewables in the UK is the same main problem for them everywhere. Fossil fuel lobbying. All the bullshit about wind turbines was generated by the same political groups funded by fossil fuel interests.
It's great that lots of people have put a lot of effort into getting past "There's no problem", "There is a problem but we can't do anything about it", "we can do something about it but it's too expensive", to get to the current "it's cheaper but the people don't like it".
Imagine how much further on we'd be if we didn't have to wade through all that BS to get here.
Most of the solution is solar and wind. Everyone knows this. It's why people commenting about nuclear will go out of their way to only mention one of them in any specific comment.
It sometimes feels like the internet has one group of nuclear fans who have never heard of wind power and another group who have never heard of solar. It's tiring to deal with.
But I'm not, so I have to be realistic and admit that there are niche areas where nuclear is helpful in real politics even if most of the noise around nuclear is clearly climate change denial.