Solar+Wind+Tides+Hydro+Geothermal+... it's also beautifully decentralized and low risk if done on a local, small, scale.

It's also why I'm doubly sceptical of fusion, and really annoyed when it's presented as a solution we'll have "soon". Even if a breakthrough was invented tomorrow that made fusion actually work, it would still require building a massive number of fusion plants, and building them cheaper than renewables+batteries.

The learning curve has been negative all throughout nuclear powers 70 year lifespan.

No one has done more to harm the environment than environmentalists that advocate against nuclear power.

> No one has done more to harm the environment than environmentalists that advocate against nuclear power.

I mean we all learn from our mistakes, I surely was against nuclear power when I was young but I think for ok reasons. Now the world is in a worse spot than it was so I changed my mind a little. Still, it's silly to pretend that that caused more "harm to the environment".

that may be historically true, but today you can build much more KW of solar+batteries than KW of nuclear for the same price. Continuing to advocate for nuclear is throwing away money that could be spent on the green transition.

What about the energy sector and their political allies' 50 year campaign gaslighting the public about the dangers posed by climate change?