Nuclear doesn't compete with wind and solar. You can put up wind and hydro cheaply and quickly almost anywhere, and that's great and all and we should honestly subsidize manufacture inside Europe rather than just rely on buying from China.

But you still need base load and nuclear is the only option that makes any sense on scale from an ecological perspective. Hydro is highly situational and almost always a worse option for the environment, as well as for safety. Coal plants should never be an option.

So yeah, just go nuclear bro.

There is no one ideal energy source. The best approach is, as always, to diversify. Relying completely on one source is irresponsible. Nuclear with renewables is a fantastic mix. Especially in countries that can't reliably generate significant amounts of electricity with hydro.

Renewable sources of energy are safer

They're actually not, generally speaking. All types of renewable energy, with the exception of solar, cause more deaths than nuclear does.

• https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
• https://cheatsheets.davidveksler.com/deaths-per-terawatt-hour.html

Some articles report slightly lower death tolls for renewables, but don't provide any sources for that data. Geothermal energy, which neither of the two sources above includes for some reason, sits right next to wind, so slightly above nuclear in terms of deaths caused per terawatt-hour.

I live by a bunch of nuclear plants. One day, I got a text alert from the government saying something was going on at one of the nuclear plants. I decided I was probably already going to die and the went back to watching porn on the toilet. I will have my dream of being an environmental telling skeleton.