I'm not debunking nuclear, I'm simply stating that just because you have a hammer climate change doesn't magically become a nail. Nuclear is great, but for the reasons I mentioned it is not suitable to combat climate change right now. I'm not advocating against nuclear, I'm simply saying that it's expensive, has problems other energy sources don't have, and relying on the building of new, safe, and cheap, designs will take way too long.

> Renewable alone (Without Coal or Gas) implies nationally to have close to 100% of the production capacity in storage alone (Battery, power2Gas or hydro storage) to compensate solar / wind intermittency. Which no country on Earth is able to do right now

again, straw man's argument. No country is close to 100% nuclear power either. France is pretty far, and they are sitting at less than 70%. and the reactors they are trying to build to increase this number are plagued by budget and timescale overruns of massive proportions. See the new safer EPR designs they have been trying to build since 2005, which are still not finished and have already consumed more than 300% of the initial projected cost [1]. it is delusional to believe we can somehow quickly scale nuclear power to the capacity needed to combat climate change.

cursing and claiming that things are a joke that have already been successfully demonstrated is not going to help make your point...

[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/fr...