If we want to fight the climate crisis,
we must embrace nuclear power

Embrace it? Nukes are being shut down all over the country because they are not cost efficient to run. Two more are going to go in Northern Illinois because their cost per MwH is too high to clear capacity markets with, and they can't sell for what it costs to make. Most of the coalers have been shut down, and now they are even attacking the NG plants as well. We are being led by Greenie morons that have zero comprehension of how power is made, nor even the concepts of peaker vs. baseload.

Conflatiing the literal 'nothing burger' of Three Mile Island, which harmed not one single person at all, and the massive, incompetent Soviet disaster of Chernobyl is ridiculous. No possible comparison. Carbon dioxide "pollution" is absolute nonsense. There is not one iota of actual evidence of harm from the very tiny increase in carbon dioxide. All of the "climate science" is 100% speculative, based on unreliable, unproven, incomplete computer models and wild, unproven, untested hypotheses. ALL predictions of massive warming, huge melting of the ice caps have proven to be false. They have been warning of 'disasters in 5 years' for 50 years. Nuclear power has proven to be extremely safe. Even the "horrific accident" at Fukishima, caused by an ultra rare level 9.0 earthquake, harmed exactly zero people. No person, even the "suicide crew" who remained at the reactor site during the entire event trying to minimize the leakage, did not receive more than their normal safe permissible annual radiation dose. Multiple reactors lost power to coolant pumps,and the entirely incompetent Japanese government made no effort at all to bring in off site emergency electrical power during the time the emergency diesel pumps ran. Eventually diesel fuel ran out, the coolant pumps stopped and the reactors melted down. And the 40+ year old, first generation design, last ditch containment technology worked perfectly, and the reactor cores self-limited and shut down by automatically assuming a subcritical shape, and have been contained and cooling naturally since. The greatest harm came from the source that has been warned about for 40 years, the open topped "temporary" storage pools for spent reactor cores, which, due to government dithering for decades, has become defacto permanent storage, even though it is unsafe, and was never intended for long term storage. Nuclear power, done right, is very safe. The Soviets didn't bother with even a basic containment structure at Chernobyl. The reactor was literally in a big tin building with a thin steel cover laying over the graphite reactor core. The basic design was cheap, but had areas of operating uinstability. The test that was run was forbidden as unsafe by central nuclear authorities who understood the low power instability of the reactor design. Yet the on-site, poorly trained technicians ran the test anyway.....and in mid test, their shift was over and they handed over the reactor, in an entirely unfamiliar, unstable low power state, to the next shift who had no briefing whatsoever about what was going on, and zero training or planning on how to deal with it. And, unsurprisingly, they lost control and blew up the reactor. At this point, having no containment vessel meant a combined runaway nuclear reactor core with a massive chemical fire as the tons and tons of graphite moderator burned, all in open air one the tin roof was gone. Our current reactors have almost nothing in common with those ancient, dangerous, uncontained Soviet reactors and have ours have operated very safely for decades. More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in all the nuclear accidents in the USA. Screw solar and wind, they are an expensive, unreliable joke. Nuclear power is the long term solution if we choose not to use our huge coal reserves. For good economic reasons, we need to go back to reprocessing nuclear fuel. Not reprocessing throws away 99% of the energy in the original fuel.

Economics of Nuclear Power: "The basic metric for any generating plant is the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). It is the total cost to build and operate a power plant over its lifetime divided by the total electricity output dispatched from the plant over that period, hence typically cost per megawatt hour. It takes into account the financing costs of the capital component (not just the 'overnight' cost).On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future." source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

I vote nuclear.

Dennis Prager has a video on his Prager U website which explains just how costly, environmentally unfriendly and impossible solar, wind and batteries are for providing power. It was a real eye-opener for me. The video is called “Unobtainium” and was produced by a scientist at the Manhattan Insitute.

Yes. Or the lights will soon go out.

Climate change is a scam but nuclear power is still the obvious answer. Modern nuclear power plants are safe and cost-effective.

I've never understood nuclear power. Unlike coal or oil or natural gas, it waste is toxic and last I knew, there was no way to detoxify it and get rid of it. We have enough oil in the ground here to last hundreds of years. Same with Natural gas and probably coal. I have always wondered why steam engines weren't made for cars. Now, I know pretty much zero about science or physics, whatever, but I do know steamboats were powered by steam and they're way bigger than cars. There is no need for the draconian measures coming our way if the climate change nuts get their way. It's all about control and power over the world's population.

The biggest disadvantage to steam for cars is the long time required to start from cold, and issues with freezing water in parked, non-operating machines in cold climates. Because the water is being vaporized in the system, it must be absolutely pure to not leave contamination in the boiler, so antifreeze is impossible in the working water. Steam was surpassed with diesel-electric, even on locomotives where these issues are less important due to them operating continuously for days at a time, by the early 1960s. Diesels are extremely fuel efficient, and the electric drives between the diesel engines and the wheels are lighter and more durable than gear drives for the extremely high power of locomotives, especially at the start when huge traction is needed at nearly zero speed to start a very heavy train. That is very difficult to accomplish with gear drives. Steam has full power at zero speed, inherently, but diesels need to be running at high speed to make power. So, connecting to the drive wheels at nearly zero speed when starting is most practical with electric drives. For large commercial ships, steam power has been replaced by very large diesel engines, for fuel efficiency reasons, and simplicity, too. Military ships are often either gas turbines (marine versions of airliner aircraft engines, often) or nuclear power for largest ships or submarines. We can do very well with coal and natural gas central power stations, no doubt. But the political forces on this carbon dioxide fraud, while scientifically fraudulent, have still convinced enough people that perhaps the 'zero carbon dioxide' nuclear would be more politically acceptable. The original reason for nuclear power was that it would be cheaper. The extreme regulation, political construction delays and prevention of fuel reprocessing, which wastes 99% of the power in the uranium, has seriously harmed the cost factor for nuclear power. The solar and wind industries want nuclear power put out of business so they can become rich, not because they are better.

There is no "climate crisis"!

The main problem with nuclear power is human nature. Ref: Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Trivia question: How many people died at "the huge Fukishima nuclear disaster"? Answer: Zero Follow on for extra credit: "How many people at "the huge Fukishima nuclear disaster" received a radiation doses beyond their annual safe allowable dose?" Answer: Zero. Facts are stubborn things.

What crisis? There is no climate crisis. What there is a lot of scaremongering and scam artists making money off it. A crisis is what happened to Texas last winter and their over reliance on "renewables."

"If we want to fight the climate crisis"? Hey, Bhaskar - - there ISN'T a "climate crisis" - - it's all make-believe. Now put on this dunce hat - - and go sit in the corner.

When someone referees to CO2 as carbon pollution, please point out to them that KingsFord Charcoal is Carbon, and you find it hard to debate people that don’t know what they are talking about.

Not being a Mensa I only know one thing about America's electrical power. If they stop us from using oil, Natural gas, and Coal and do not replace it with Nuclear plants, the windmills and solar panels aint gonna cut the mustard.

Why are the French so smart that they can generate 70% plus of their power by nukes?

A manufactured "crisis" requires no response other than prosecuting the manufacturers for fraud.