> they consider those technologies to be girly, and therefore still bring up big hairy nuclear reactors whenever anyone fails at avoiding them at parties.
I don't think this is really a thing, and I suspect this appeal to ridicule is being made in bad faith.
My impression is that there's currently an active and honest debate going on right now on whether nuclear is necessary or not.
Every argument I've heard about nuclear was about getting to carbon neutral or negative fast enough to avert climate disaster, and providing a stable base load in light of generation fluctuation of solar and wind, and current lack of sufficient storage to smooth load - generation curves.
To counteract fluctuating loads, you do not need a "stable base load". You need generation power that happily fluctuates at just about the same rate as the renewables do, but on command. That is not nuclear power, it is (currently) natural gas.
I don't think this is really a thing, and I suspect this appeal to ridicule is being made in bad faith.
My impression is that there's currently an active and honest debate going on right now on whether nuclear is necessary or not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/11/what-does-science-say-abou...
Every argument I've heard about nuclear was about getting to carbon neutral or negative fast enough to avert climate disaster, and providing a stable base load in light of generation fluctuation of solar and wind, and current lack of sufficient storage to smooth load - generation curves.