Ok, so she's not a great source for truth, that still doesn't make nuclear bad though. Why is it always framed as "nuclear vs renewables" instead of "nuclear and renewables vs fossil fuels"?
Also, the fact that girl is promoting the rhetoric of "greens killed nuclear!!" should be a red flag. This is simply false, nuclear was killed by its expensive electricity. While greens may have taken credit, that was unearned credit.
If countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritize support for renewables, rather than nuclear power.
Australia’s leading scientific research organisation, the CSIRO, has delivered a damning blow against the renewed push by the federal Coalition for nuclear power, saying it is expensive, and too slow to make a significant contribution to any serious climate targets.
The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, and France, along with the former secretary to the UK’s government radiation protection committee, have issued a joint statement that in part says, “Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change.”
Renewables are more dynamic in production. You can turn them on and off quickly, you can scale them quickly too. You can’t do that with nuclear plants easily. Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit.
That’s why the nuclear energy sector is friends with the coal sector.