Is nuclear power the solution to climate change?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is nuclear power the solution to climate change?". Your opponent's style: Winston Churchill

100% it is, the danger of it is overrated

You're claiming danger is overrated, but you're ignoring the economic reality. Nuclear plants take 10-15 years to build and cost billions while solar and wind are already cheaper per megawatt and deployable in months. By the time your reactor comes online, renewables have already decarbonized the grid faster and for less money. Why bet climate survival on the slowest, most capital-intensive option when we have faster tools right now? What timeline justifies waiting a decade for one plant instead of scaling proven alternatives that are already winning in the market?

so would you wait to build an airplane to travel to europe, or would you start walking on foot? which one is doing more damage?

False equivalence. You're comparing a journey to climate action, but the analogy breaks down immediately. We don't have a decade to wait—we need emissions cuts now. Renewables aren't "walking," they're already flying. Solar and wind are deploying at scale today, reducing emissions this year while nuclear permits and constructs. Your airplane arrives in 2036, but the climate crisis peaks sooner. And critically, we can scale renewables indefinitely across millions of sites globally. Nuclear capacity is bottlenecked by construction speed, uranium supply, and waste storage nobody wants. You're choosing the slower transportation method and calling it progress. Why not deploy what's already flying instead of fantasizing about planes that take fifteen years to build?

why "now"? climate change is normal our data has proven it you are just a climate change fear mongerer

You're pivoting to deny the scientific consensus, which collapses your original argument. You started defending nuclear as necessary—now you're saying the problem doesn't exist. Pick a lane. If climate change is "normal," why build nuclear at all? If it's not a crisis, your entire premise fails. But the data doesn't support you. Global temperatures have risen 1.1°C in 150 years at a rate ten times faster than historical warming trends. That's not normal—it's unprecedented in speed. You can't simultaneously argue nuclear solves climate change and climate change isn't real. Which is it?