Harmful are stupid regulations helping coal, and also people who don't get that damage from coal is so strong that even ancient nuclear reactors are safer, including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Nuclear's long build times help coal plants stay open and are thus bad for emissions. Here [1] an article about Poland deciding to build nuclear plants FOUR YEARS AGO. During that time they did not displace a single molecule of co2 from their worst in Europe electricity production. The construction didn't even begin yet, and when it does it will again take years in the best case. If it takes as much as it did in other European countries recently, we are talking about 20 years easily.
Those that praise this strategy are either naive, misinformed, or funded by the nuclear lobby.
Except we were talking specifically about Poland for which you said you support what they do. Now that you know the facts do you still support prolonging the use of so much coal? In 4 years they've done nothing, and won't do anything for at least a decade. Germany's coal exit 2030 you called too slow. Will you reconsider?
France started building a prototype replacement in Flamanville for those reactors and with a bit of luck it might be finished this year. After 20 years of development.
They gave up on climate change when they decided to invest in nuclear energy. They prioritized nuclear power over removal of coal. If the whole world takes this viewpoint we will decarbonize in a few centuries.
The French plants were designed to run for 30 years, their replacement was supposed to be the EPR and the construction on Flamanville started almost 20 years ago. The program has been a colossal failure.
