As one of the more reliable science writers i read. I am saddened to see that you fall for this line of thinking. I thought it was just greenpeace backed lobbyists on twitter.

Solar and wind create far more waste than nuclear over the lifespan of modern nuclear facility. Further, renewable solutions cost more also.

A modern nuclear plant lives 80 years. For the same energy production you have to buy solar or wind three times, making nuclear the cheaper option.

In that time, where do the aged, weather torn, or otherwise obviated solar panels go? Where do the aged blades go (they are currently dicing them and burning them in some places, yay co2 emissions)

Never mind its resistance to negative effects from weather, clouds, night, etc.

Further still, the deplyoyment of solar is so far pretty bad. Forests are getting cut all around me, farm land, mountain tops and so forth sre getting plastered with black glass instead of deploying it in a more environmently considerate way. Roads, parking lots, mall roofs, ship yards, stadiums, etc. all this should be covered before another blade of grass is cut for renewables.

Meanwhile nuclear takes a tiny fraction of the land space to be able to deliver the same amount of power.

Fusion isn’t coming any tome soon and should not be planned to be a path.

The best time ti olant a tree was 20 years ago. The same is true for nuclear facilties.

Its hard to take a “no nukes” person seriously with regard to a climate friendly future with abundant energy.

In no way am I suggesting a nukes only approach. But the idea of supplying energy without a robust and reliable baseload is silly.

The issues of nuclear waste have been solved for decades. Its literally a non issue. Breeder reactors make it so the process is extremely efficient.

All the fuel, ever made by man kind over the last 50 years takes up a single football field 15cm high and can be used for fuel in the future. The waste piling up from ruined renewables is far worse.