Alright then. Let's start shutting down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nuclear.
About 7.5 years if you start them all at the same time.
http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle...
How long would it take to deploy that solar energy system, as well as figuring out a storage solution to overcome the problem of the duck curve?
Solar farms can be deployed at large scale in less than three years. Here’s India adding 7 MW in that timeframe: https://www.greenlaunches.com/alternative-energy/less-three-...
We do have lots of solar panels and lots of solar panel manufacturing capacity. I don’t think we have the nuclear resources we need to produce as fast.
And solar only covers half of the day anyway.
But so far nuclear power statistically is safer than any other source (wind, solar, hydro, coal), deaths per Wh, including the worst events like Chernobyl.
There’s no dark black magic inside nuclear power plant. It just burns uranium and heats water to spin turbines. Uranium burning happens all the time on Earth, in fact, if Uranium did not burn, the Earth would be much colder place.
(Technically, it is not burning of course, it’s fission.)
Poisoning water does not make extinction event.
It would render some area unsuitable for living, big economic loss, so don’t operate knowingly flawed reactors, and don’t let Soviets operate nuclear reactors, and it will be fine.
> the inherent danger cannot be denied
As well as dangers of flying, taking a shower, operating a hydro power plant and everything else.
Even accounting for these dangers, nuclear is the safest option.
The parent commenter did not call for 1 more nuclear power plant.
Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances, that some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists.
May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others?
Sure, from very small to ten times that, still very small.
> some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists
OK, we can accept that eventually one or two small regions will be not suitable for living. We already do a lot of that when we build hydro power plants for example. Hydro power plants consume a lot of land.
> May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others?
Chernobyl, no, it is radioactive and dangerous. Fukushima surrounding is very safe, it was evacuated only because there were ignorant people in Japanese government.
Anyway, what's the point of the question? Nobody is supposed to live where it is not safe, like nobody lives in Chernobyl exclusion zone.