On the other hand, if we are serious about global warming and pollution, we need nuclear energy immediately (including the safe nuclear fission technologies which we've had for a few decades now, as well as continued research into fusion).
On the other hand, if we are serious about global warming and pollution, we need nuclear energy immediately (including the safe nuclear fission technologies which we've had for a few decades now, as well as continued research into fusion).
Based on everything I've read, I think we need to do a bunch of different things all at once to address global warming and reduce emissions as quickly as possible. Yes, solar and wind are intermittent sources, but they're cheap and available now. Yes, we need to upgrade our grids to be able to handle all of the new electric vehicles. We also need to change over building heating/cooling. Find better means of making concrete.
You may not have meant only do nuclear, but I see politicians saying "nuclear & carbon capture" as if that's going to get the job done, but I haven't seen any analysis that supports those things alone doing the job.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gat... [2] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-fund...
Renewables are quicker, cheaper and sufficient.
A 3x overbuild of solar+wind in an optimal mix, along with a continental grid and 3 hours worth of batteries is all you need for 99.99% reliability over an entire year.