I am certainly not anti-technology, but I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone would increase dependence on nuclear power while there was still oil, coal and gas available.
Why exchange pollutants which would be gone in 50 years for those that won’t be safe for thousands?
“Why exchange pollutants which would be gone in 50 years for those that won’t be safe for thousands?”
For the plants now running, there wasn’t much choice - all the ‘experts’ said we were running out of fuel and solar/wind wasn’t practical at all. Now that we have the nukes, we might as well get the nearly free power out of them, because we’re going to get the waste regardless.
As to the future, there are options for nuclear power without nearly the issue regarding waste - including stable nuclear fuels and breeder reactors.
You do not understand Nuclear power. The exchange of pollutants you mention is a fallacy for a number of reasons ranging from CO2 is not a pollutant to the ability of capturing, with current technologies, any real pollutant fossil fuels emit. So on that front I agree keep fossil fuels!
However Nuclear generates WAY less waste than the uniformed public knows and is quite easily managed and disposed of. Given the massive energy density of nuclear it should also be part of the energy mix. Without going all technical, literally it is shocking just how little space and how easily it is safely disposed of.
A better answer is nuclear for bulk needs like cities, homes and industry and fossil for transportation or remote areas where distribution is more challenging.
Nuke waste can be reprocessed. Even the French can do it.