Sure, but we're not doing net zero, and never were. It's an Ideal that dominates in the media only to undermine the actual work of adaptation, since it cannot and will not be attempted under capitalism - it'd be easier to ask the devil to lay off on the brimstone. Like fusion, when net zero 2025 passed, they just start talking about net zero by 2030.

Somewhat decentralised and resilient solar energy infrastructure is far more valuable for surviving extreme climate change and global excitements than a nuclear power infrastructure that won't exist without decades of struggle. And the former can be attempted by individuals and small communities even with our malicious and incapable governments - small-scale community nuclear isn't even a dream.

Focusing on nuclear energy is ultimately passive, it'll always be a decades-long project, first to overcome the hostile regulations and corruption blocking it, and then to just get it done - and it can only be done by corporations or governments, who we must trust to actually do it. Solar/renewables are active, alive, they can be done now even imperfectly, by small groups.

The only single solution is every single solution - nuclear, solar, communism, wind, ecological adaptation, yadda yadda.

Saying the panels would end up in landfills is absolutely misinformation.

Like 95% of a solar panel is glass, aluminum, or silicon. I terms of recycling, those are some of the most recyclable materials.

If your goal is net zero than solar and batteries is it because its theoretically possible to reach a point where all new panels and batteries are produced from materials recycled out of old panels and batteries.

Nuclear plants require mining and non-renewable materials to make, and are economically non-recyclable, meaning they end up in landfill.