[Comevius]

The global power consumption is around 25000 terawatt hours, so you would need to operate around 5000 nuclear power stations to cover that.

You would need 5000 locations, but then you would run out of uranium and exotic metals in a few years. They are non-renewable resources.

Nuclear is not going to happen in time. Every dollar put into it is a waste at this point. The focus should be on decommissioning existing reactors so that the harm is limited when society eventually falls apart, to give a chance for future generations.

[giarc]

I suspect that building and operating a nuclear plant is more complex than coal, however this table indicates there are currently 2445 operating coal plants currently, and approx 500 in pre-construction or construction. So is it really that hard to fathom operating 5000 nuclear plants? Especially if our existence might depend on it? I also don't think people are recommending replacing EVERY source of energy with nuclear... just the dirty ones.

1 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kXtAw6QvhE14_KRn5lnG...

[sofixa]

Nuclear power stations usually contain multiple reactorsand afaik there's no limit on how any of them you can have. So a lot less than 5000 locations.

> The focus should be on decommissioning existing reactors so that the harm is limited when society eventually falls apart, to give a chance for future generations.

And replace them with what? Energy instability sure as hell won't help current or future generations.