[lr]

You highlight the biggest problem: humans simply must change/adjust/whatever you want to call it, if humanity is to survive. The only technological out is fusion power. Without that, humans must learn to do with less (of everything). Everything else is empty rhetoric and time wasted.

[Manuel_D]

Or we could use fission instead of fusion? We already have examples of countries using it successfully: France, Sweden, South Korea, and increasingly China. And the US during the 60s and 70s.

Geographically independent power, no carbon emissions, and no intermittency. It fulfills anything we'd get from fusion, except we have 70 years of experience using it in our power grids.

[jpgvm]

We don't need fusion. Fusion would be nice but we have more than enough fissile material to use well-understood fission plants for the foreseeable future.

The problem is humanity needs to get it's act together and stop allowing politics, NIMBY and a severe lack of understanding of science from getting in the way of saving itself.

Nuclear proliferation is the least of our problems if we can't grow our food outside anymore and half our cities are underwater.

[adrianN]

No that's wrong. There are plenty of ways of achieving carbon neutral energy production. Fusion is one of them, but it's unlikely that fusion will be a particularly cheap source of power.

[onethought]

Or increase the production of batteries (and solar/wind).

Is building nuclear power faster than building Lithium Battery Factories?

[njarboe]

Or why not both? The materials to make each doesn't overlap much so building on does not jack up the price of building the other.

[onethought]

I think if it’s governments fitting the bill, there is a limit to resources. But agree you could pursue both.

Nuclear power is still kind of fossil fuels though, so it’s just kicking the can down the road… but it’s a big kick.