There's a difference in something being not perfect and being fundamentally flawed. My confusion is because you perfectly verbalized why I think it's flawed.

I could understand being in favor of using nuclear temporarily until renewables are more reliable. I don't agree but I understand the thought process. It's a calculated risk, an acceptable gamble. But being aware of all the issues with nuclear and still be in favor of it long term, in my opinion, doesn't make sense.

Mind you, I'm not trying to attack you, I'm genuinely intrigued and curious.

[–] imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I dunno what that guy was thinking, but it seems obvious to me that nuclear fusion is the long term solution for energy generation.

Nuclear fission not so much, but it's definitely debatable which has more fundamental flaws between fission and wind/hydro/solar. All renewable energy sources ultimately depend on natural processes which are not reliable or permanent. And they also tend to disrupt the environment to some extent.

Nuclear fission has no such limitations, but instead trades long term risk for short term stability. Basically renewable sources are and always will be somewhat unreliable, and Nuclear fission is the least bad reliable energy source to pair with the renewables. So in the medium term, fission makes a lot more sense than fossil fuels, and in the long term we should be looking to fusion.