those who push for radical action to green the world would have to advocate for nuclear for any hope of reducing emissions quickly enough

however, most of them don't do this, bc its not actually about practical solutions, but rather an anti-capitalist Malthusian degrowth cult

even if you manage to convince them of the safety factor, you typically then get pushback about how it's practically impossible to do this for economic reasons, without a govt subsidy

well, evidence-based deregulation is a form of govt subsidy, as it lowers the activation energy

nuclear power is our path to the next stage of technological evolution; ubiquitous cheap power, with drastically lower emissions, will enable us to electrify even those in the most remote locales, as transfer losses will be less significant

and with this comes public buy-in

degrowth arguments suddenly become a lot less sensible when you take away their foundations, ie climate catastrophe and the rurals being left behind and exploited

considering how dangerous the ideology is, imo this alone makes nuclear worthwhile

but there's so much more

ubiquitous nuclear power will allow us to scale our scientific capabilities that much more, throwing massively more energy at the problem of fusion reactors; lowering research costs increases probability of making discoveries sooner

idt I need to explain why fusion is important

compounding applies in this situation; the sooner we achieve fusion, the sooner its consequences can begin to filter downstream into society

capabilities drive requirements; as barriers to entry to high-energy fields are lowered, we'll see faster innovation as more people enter

empowering smart & scrappy individuals to throw themselves at the same problems as institutions has, historically, been shown to produce incredibly results; see: startups

with cheap energy, this happens for deep tech research as well

nuclear brings us closer to the future