Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

What happens to reactors after 50 or 100 years of global/national decline due to environmental and geopolitical circumstances?

What happens after another century of dumping 45+ billion tons of CO2 and other GHGs into the air?

The question is whether it's better to use nuclear power or fossil fuel power. There's little difference, practically speaking, between hemming and hawing about statistically small events happening re: nuclear power, or what we do a lifetime from now, and actively advocating for increased fossil fuel usage.

If nuclear can be replaced with something even cleaner and even safer then I'm all for it. But it's short sighted in the extreme to actively tear nuclear down when the only realistic alternative at that scale is fossil fuel.

Or the discussion is about nuclear versus other forms of "green" energy.

And what do you do when the other forms of green energy aren't available?