[raxxorraxor]

Plus fission has its own problems and is very expensive and the storage problem is not solved.

Doesn't mean you should turn of any power plant, but it is just not a very good or efficient way to generate energy right now. Economic considerations will always restrict security. It was the case in Japan and will be the case everywhere else as well.

Fission is only efficient if you manage to reduce the question of ecological impact to CO2. But the overall calculation is far more in favor of renewable forms of energy.

[llsf]

Nuclear waste storage is solved. And for the last generation (4th) of nuclear power plants, the waste gets back to natural level of radioactivity in only 1,000 years. We have in France bridges that are older than that.

Running a nuclear power plant is very cheap. Building it is expensive and requires lots of capital upfront. The cost of nuclear is mostly interest. That is why it is a bit more expensive in UK (private capital) vs France (state capital).

How "the overall calculation is far more in favor of renewable forms of energy." ? In order to build enough solar or wind, plus batteries to replace all the nuclear production, we will have to extract a lot of resources (rare earth, lithium, etc.) pour a lot of concrete (for wind) which creates a lot of CO2, make lots of iron (energy hungry and producing lots of CO2). And all the waste involved, and they also have a lifespan, and needs to be replaced over time.

Not saying that we should not use solar/wind. But I am not convinced that it is the silver bullet and we can replace all the current and growing energy production with solely solar+ wind. It seems to me more reasonable to have a base line with nuclear, esp. if CO2 reduction and preparing for oil/gaz/coal peak are the goal.