but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy. No. Building a solar or wind plant is cheaper and faster than building a nuclear plant, sure, but that's not what we're aiming for. The goal is to decarbonize electricity by phasing out fossils. Replacing all fossil-based electricity production nationwide is quite cheap for nuclear when done right (e.g. France, planning for decades and multiple reactors at once, while actually politically supporting your industry, instead of throwing a project once in a while and letting it fight in courts by itself against NIMBY and anti-nuclears). Replacing fossils with solar and wind power is science fiction. There is not a single country in the world that has decarbonized its electricity without significant decarbonized and controllable electricity capacities, or to name them: hydro or nuclear. Except that you just can't build hydro anywhere, and most countries' capacities are limited. You can't claim that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, because solar and wind just can't do what nuclear can, and can at best be complementary to other controllable power sources.

That's real c/lionsatemyface stuff. Please crosspost there.

Does this mean we're getting genetically engineered whale based airships in the british navy?

2x Fn on MacBooks

I’m going to give you a five star review to balance it.