Hacker News Reader

It's not hard to understand their argument, if you make the attempt.

More CO2 is avoided per unit of currency spent with renewables than with building nuclear plants.

> I think a main point from them specifically is that investment in energy is zero-sum, and state resources directed towards nuclear energy are resources not going towards renewable energies.

If we're taking climate change seriously, we need massive investment in clean electricity generation. There's place for both nuclear and renewables.

Secondly, the goal is to reduce emissions. Increasing renewables (or nuclear for that matter) isn't the goal. What we need is a least-cost zero-carbon grid. If that happens to be 0% nuclear, fine. Just as fine as if that happens to be 100% nuclear. Most likely it'll be a combination (see e.g. work by Jenkins, Caldeira etc.).

> Furthermore, heating and transport make up a large proportion of carbon emissions, and these generally aren't powered by nuclear energy.

They aren't powered by wind or solar either, which are the renewable sources with, so far at least, the best potential. That's why there needs to be, together with a massive push to clean and expand the electric grid, a massive push to electrify transportation and heating.

Here is an easier argument for the nuclear anti-support: Green parties across the globe are spouting Chinese propaganda to further China's hold on the energy market (since they own 99% of rare-earth metals + a good grip on otherwise "green" energy manufacturing).