In my uneducated opinion, the only way I see nuclear working is if there are small modular reactors that are produced quickly in a factory assembly line.
France's nuclearization program took 20 years [2], but that's a hare's pace compared to building the energy storage required for intermittent sources.
1. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme...
We need both fast actions and we also need actions that take ten years or even thirty. Everything helps.
I've been participating in climate discussions for multiple decades.
The less we do and the later we do, it's going to be worse. But it's still better than not doing anything.
Ie there's no point in time, after which it's not worth doing anything.
For anyone interested, citation is here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read...
The idea that there is some tipping point in 2030 that must be avoided at all cost is just an internet rumor.
It's more complicated & nuanced than most blogs or stories have time for, but it's not an Internet rumor.
I don't think she says anything I much disagree with. I think this even restates my point, in less inflammatory language:
> and here, my friends, is where the mythical "we have 12 years to fix this or the world ends" narrative comes from. (I'm not pointing my finger at anyone in particular here; I'm just saying I've heard this. A lot.)
> Concl'n: Science does not identify a specific goal, target, or timeline. What it says is simply this: the more carbon we produce, the worse the impacts. The best thing to do is wean ourselves off it, as soon as is humanly possible. As a human I'd add: while minimizing suffering.
Most nuclear plants have been working 20-40 years. We need new designs for safer, cheaper plants, and a viable storage for nuclear waste.