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

Nuclear power is a costly solution to nearly all problems accounted for in the modern-day debate of energy independence and commodities. Most accidents against nuclear energy have been accidental, preventable disasters that have been taken more seriously in modern day usage.

You've rather neatly swept the inconvenient facts under the carpet, haven't you? Costly is precisely the point. Nuclear plants take a decade to build and billions to complete, while solar and wind are operational in months for a fraction of the cost. And your cheerful assurance about "modern safety" rings hollow when we're still burdened with radioactive waste lasting millennia, with no permanent disposal solution anywhere on Earth. France itself, your nuclear poster child, is shutting plants down due to cooling water shortages from climate change. You cannot solve climate change with a technology that becomes *more vulnerable* as the planet warms.

Tell me how much space this radioactive waste takes up?

A fair question—and the answer proves my point entirely. Roughly 448,000 tonnes of spent fuel have been discharged worldwide, with 322,000 tonnes remaining in storage [1]. But here's what your side conveniently hides: None of these wastes have a permanent geological repository yet operational [2]. After seventy years of nuclear power, we're still warehousing this poison at reactor sites. Your "modern safety" amounts to crossing your fingers and hoping the next political generation solves yesterday's problem.