But we already know how we got global warming. Take all the nuclear 'disasters' over the last 80 years and compare that to the absolute bloody devastation of fossil fuel power.

Cheaper and more reliable to switch to renewables now though; whilst waiting for nuclear to catch up.

Hey @politico.com don't conflate nuclear power with right wing politics. Nuclear is low carbon energy. It's "Next-generation nuclear technologies called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs)" and 🇩🇰 is working on Nuclear. www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/01/cope...

The short answer has to be no. Has anyone yet built and started using one of these things in the timeline they said they would?

And if they had begun building them 10 years ago, we would have WAY LESS CO2 emissions. So, I'm not sure why you don't want to safeguard future generations.

We'd still be building it. And last time I looked, intention did bugger all to bring down CO2.

What @prettyhatmachine.bsky.social said.

"Has anyone yet built and started using one of these things in the timeline they said they would?" Yes .. but not in Europe or USA

There has never been a nuclear project that was delivered on time and on budget.

That's what I thought. How overdue is the one in the UK, if it will ever do much more than rot?

Personally not opposed to nuclear but it takes too long to fix immediate energy problems. Renewables are available now; and have more of an immediate environmental and economic benefit.

Nuclear is the safest and the cleanest base energy. Countries that do not rely on nuclear for base demand will struggle to meat huge increases in demand

True. And Germany has been the largest polluter in Europe for a long time because they refused to build nuclear power plants.

Wonder who benefits monetarily

unproven Technology.. SMRs? China and Russia both have working prototyes. Especially China has lots of advance in terms like HTR-PM, MSR (Thorium), FNPPs, FNRs and all that while EU & USA rather fund/support warcrimes

Pay not much attention to this: it's normal national political games. It's just "left favoured A, She says yes to B". What A and B are are kind of irrelevant. It will just fill talkshows for a couple of months, than a new A vs. B will came on the stage and the cycle will repeat, indifinitely.

Italy needs to vote her out

Nuclear power is being used as a stalling tactic to protect the fossil fuel industry. It takes decades to implement and is not as cost effective as renewables. Italy could have solar on every home for that money and it can be done within a few years; cheaper; easier and more reliable.

This is the period of debate, each country knows Europe needs this. Nuclear is an essential part of Netzero, not only in the easy part of electrcity but also all the other energy sources. And the production of industrial heat and steam, which includes the production of Hydrogen and Fertilizer.