SGR

It's important to recognize that nuclear power reactors in use today are very different from the Soviet-design used in Chernobyl. They're much safer today.

Yes, Chernobyl was a tragedy and it could've been avoided. But to completely oppose the use of nuclear energy to reduce emissions seems short-sighted at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Nuclear power isn't the only effective avenue, but it's an important component of a larger energy approach (e.g. wind, solar, hydro, etc) that we need to utilize to mitigate problems in the future. If we completely replaced coal with nuclear (not sure if that's possible yet), we could save perhaps 3,000 lives a year (due to coal plant/mining pollution).

Are there concerns and considerations with nuclear energy? Absolutely - and Chernobyl was a sobering lesson. But if the environment and climate change are your priority, then simply dismissing nuclear energy because of an accident (caused by bad design and human error) that occurred 35 years ago seems to be an unwise position to take. Nuclear reactors are getting safer and more economically efficient with redesigns. I'm happy that Biden's administration seems to be open and perhaps even optimistic about nuclear energy.

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_white-...s/6206602.html

For the record, I've got no ill will towards Greta personally. I think it's a good thing that she's bringing attention to climate change issues. I just disagree strongly with her position on nuclear energy and if I was a betting man, I'd bet that she becomes pro-nuclear within the next 5 years.