The argument they make is that solar and wind is unlimited. This is true but it’s not a concentrated source of energy like oil and the land and capital needed for windmills and solar panel is limited.
If someone is against nuclear they’re not serious about this discussion. It’s an unlimited source of energy that doesn’t emit carbon.
Even if you look at it logically, Energy is generated by agitating electrons around the shell of an atom. The “progressive” way to do this is to utilize the nucleus.
I've posted many long posts about wind and solar. I worked in Energy for one of the largest companies in the world.
It's not practical anytime soon. It's more expensive to build a large wind tower than the amount of energy it produces during its life. Solar is not practical for 90% of the planet due to weather and infrastructure. It's just a good idea.
I have a rental house in Southern NM with the best solar panels money can buy. This area gets full sun over 290 days a year. It's in the middle of the desert. Still i have to be connected to the grid, but it depends on how much the a/c is turned on. Considering in the summer it gets over 105 degrees for weeks at a time, you get the point. If it gets cloudy for more than 4 days i have to pull energy from the grid. Now
without air conditioning or appliances, it would last 3-4 weeks or more, which is more practical since the chances of there being no sun for that long are pretty much impossible.
I do believe we will have better methods to harvest energy in the next 50-100 years. Also better ways to use power efficiently. At some point we will not rely on fossil fuels, but not anytime soon.
Nuclear has the problem of waste disposal, which i think could be solved very quickly,