This seems to be in the ballpark, although the podcast "methodisch inkorrect" cited (years ago and in german) a perhaps too ideal number of 99%. Lets agree on

This seems to be in the ballpark, although the podcast "methodisch inkorrect" cited (years ago and in german) a perhaps too ideal number of 99%. Lets agree on a factor of 20 between burning fossils and using fission as an energy source for a further guesstimate. Solar and wind are better than that, since they have primary energy requirements for production, but no warmth is generated: the albedo of solar panels is as good as grass, the warmth generated by a wind turbines would be generated by the wind slowing down on a tree, house or mountain as well. As which is cheapest, that could vary between those three technologies. None are regulated as fast as gas turbines, but fission power output is perhaps faster to scale than fusion or even coal. Having energy at one tenth the cost (solar/wind is supposedly already half to on fifth to cost of fusion) we could feasibly consume ten times the energy by replacing fossils, traveling more, consuming more and giving 80 % of mankind the final lift to 90s-level western accommodations. So perhaps no net change at all in the ecological balance of heating our space ship if we really switch to fission and keep the our mind set on growth by more technology.