Make hydrogen and synthetic fuel with plenty of nuclear energy. It's wake-up time. Batteries can't do the climate job.

Paroway you could not be more wrong if you tried. First off nuclear power is 24/7/365 power with a capacity factors of 90+% that power is available for less than 5 cents per kWh in fuel,O&M, and capital costs of the antinuclear zealots are not allowed to commit lawfare to drive up the capital costs with endless lawsuits.

Ask S.Korea or.China to build you a nuke they both can do it for $2000kw or under and in less than 5 years from first concrete to busbar. Why because they do not allow for lawsuits once a plant design is certified they build the licensed plant again and again. When you add in the costs of back up power to support intermittent solar or wind both with capacity factors under 25% when you add in the costs of energy storage needed to provide 24/7/365 power the all I costs are much higher than nuclear. 2 min on Google can confirm this from the IEA or DOE.

There are a number of engine technologies that
Are EPA certified as zero/zero/zero for NOx,SOx,and PM2.5 this means no detectable at the part per billion or less range for any of those pollutants. They are certified zero emissions by the EPA.

Here is one of at least three engine makers with 0/0/0 tech.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201119006248/en/OptiFuel-Now-Producing-Zero-Criteria-Emission-Freight-Locomotives-From-1200-to-2400-Hp-and-Can-Run-on-Renewable-Natural-Gas-RNG-to-100-Decarbonize-the-Rail-Market

Nuclear energy as H2 gas plus CO2 over a nickel catalysts yields synthetic methane, plus ethane, propane and butane. All of which are 0/0/0 capable fuels. Propane and butane have three times the density as methane and are liquid at room temp with 200 psi of vapor pressure. Ethane has twice the BTU per cubic foot vs CH4 and is liquid at 3000psi and 70 F same density as liquid methane at cryotemps. The idea is make synthetic C1-C4 hydrocarbons from nuclear H2 and captured CO2 put the methane in the existing gas grid. Use the ethane for locomotives,heavy trucks,ships,and off road equipment that can have 3000psi fiber tanks. Use the propane and butane at the retail level as it only needs 200 or less psi to keep it liquid. Aluminum beer kegs can store it safely

Its very difficult to get a proper handle on the true costs of nuclear, due to the agendas of commentators and even ex regulators, which may or may not have validity.

Here is the rejection of nuclear from several ex heads of safety and regulation, including Jaczko, who was in charge of certification for new designs in the US:

https://www.powermag.com/blog/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-to-new-reactors/

The difficulty I have about that is that Jaczko was to put it mildly somewhat less than upfront about his total opposition when he was in charge of authorisations.

In the circumstances it is perhaps unsurprising that no authorisation for new designs were issued for decades, including for radical safety improvements.

So you have an industry where opponents who were running it were in total opposition to the technology, where the overwhelming majority of costs are in the build, but regulations for the specifications could be and were changed constantly, with reams of paperwork needed for each one.

It is rather like the defence industry, where the cost of a new warship is a staggering multiple of the cost of a commercial ship.

As for nuclear waste etc, the critique seems to be based on notions that it is reasonable to demand no radiation at all, and wholly fantastical a la Greenpeace wild claims of not only linear no threshold for potential damage, but any figure they contrive to generate.

It is difficult to argue rationally against a proposition which is not based on any rational premises,

One thing is for sure, developing nuclear on the lines that the French did in the 70's would not only have saved countless lives in the mining industry for coal and from respiratory deseases, but we would not be in our current fix on climate change.

When people talk about problems, often claimed to be insoluble, with zero figures put on it, it is meaningless.

Yep, reactors produce 'waste'.

It is however a fraction of the amount produced by the rival technology of the time, coal, which also contains some level of radioactivity,

And the supposed 'waste' is perfectly good fuel for newer reactors with more advanced fuel cycles.

All the waffle about long lived radioactive waste ignores the fact that it is long lived precisely because the levels of emissions are low.

In contrast some industrial processes producing for instance mercury do indeed have a 'forever hazard'

The most advanced reactors produce waste reactive in the hundreds of years, which is in line with normal industry standards for industrial waste.

Lots of things are dangerous and need managing, for instance the chemicals in solar panels, to claim without putting any numbers on it that the waste of nuclear is an insoluable and unique problem is not sensible.

And 'putting the numbers on it' does not mean the twaddle Greenpeace put out, which are propaganda, not estimates.

The fact that the fossil fuel industry, who can calculate stuff rather well, chose instead to lie relentlessly to line their own pockets does not make Greenpeace's counter propaganda any more sensible or worthwhile.

Check out WHOs estimates of long term casualties from Chernobyle, for instance, which even though based on the dubious and poorly supported notion of linear no threshold radiation casualities, are a tiny fraction of Greenpeace's ranting.

If you overestimate risks by a factor of a thousand or so, then of course safeguarding against those fantasy figures is vastly expensive.

Greenpeace et al have got German reactors closed, so safeguarding presumable against tsunami's on the Rhine.

Greta Thunberg notes that closing working reactors in favour of lignite mining is not too enviromentally friendly.

@yoatman:

If you want to make claims about this and that, cite your sources with references.

Yep, it is down.
But where precisely are your figures from?
With sources, please.

And you seem to be confusing dry air cooling, which is perfectly practical, with hot air, where Greenpeace excels.

@ sd:
I understand your reasoning but I have several reservations.
"Design certification is anticipated by 2027, followed by site-specific licensing and construction on the first unit toward the end of the decade. "
I deduce from this statement that there is no pilot project active to this date and that the planning and design stage is not yet concluded. In comparison, the Stellerator W 7x in Germany just completed fusion duration of 8 minutes and is programmed for some time in 2023 to achieve 30 minutes; upon achieving this milestone there are no hurdles remaining to go on-line.
The recent achievements from NIF justifies hope that their conception is ready to bear fruit just around the corner.
Estimating that a fusion reactor could be on-line by the end of the decade, I'd certainly prefer to see a proven fusion reactor on the grid than an unproven AP 300.

@yoatman

I looked at the Stellarator W 7x and also the Commonwealth Fusion Systems and TAE Power Solutions HB11 reactors. I would guess that Commonwealth Fusion Systems may be closest to having a working system and the TAE Power Solutions HB11 reactor is certainly interesting. However, I find it highly unlikely that we will have commercial fusion power by 2030 and probably not even by 2035. 2040 maybe??

Meanwhile TerraPower is building a fast sodium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming that should come online around 2030. See https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/ Also, Nuscale is building a multi-unit modular reactor in Idaho that should come online in 2029. Both are within an easy drive from where I live. Being a fast reactor the TerraPower Natruim reactor will be capable of burning existing spent nuclear fuel. As it has molten salt heat storage, it is also capable of load following

This a fun shouting match, and I would like to say...
Bias is universal, but dollars speak the truth without tax subsidies.
Meanwhile the long time subsidized (JFK tried to end subsidies, hmm) oil industry has almost certainly been involved in covert anti nuclear organizing.