[ZeroGravitas]

Nuclear has never decarbonized an entire industrial economy, so by that definition, nuclesr is nkt "proven technology".

It probably could have, if you priced carbon appropriately 50 or 60 years ago, but no one did so cars and various industrial processes never made the shift and other random things like cow burps it cant even theoretically fix.

Now it's too expensive to bother trying even for the bits it's suited to.

Ironically, the main thing that wpuld make nuclear cheaper, would be cheap energy storage as youd only need to uild enoigh plants to generate the average yearly demand and use tge storage to handle the varying loads.

[pfdietz]

And if you wanted to power the world with nuclear, you'd need breeder reactors or seawater U extraction. Burner reactors powering the world would go through a megaton of natural uranium each year.

[korantu]

Even if we ask South Korea to please build us world of nuclear, it would be long time before uranium would be an issue - it is very small part of overall price.

[pfdietz]

You have just said nuclear cannot scale up fast enough to help with climate change.

[korantu]

South Korea can build nuclear on time and on budget, so it is possible.

And for the sake of the discussion, I think France can be fairly considered decarbonized, even if not really 100%.

Note that TFA refers to decarbonization of electricity generation only, which is the definition I use as well.