> This statement doesn't mean anything Nope. Take it into account all facts described in my previous answer. Short version: to produce at most 17% (and now 9

> This statement doesn't mean anything Nope. Take it into account all facts described in my previous answer. Short version: to produce at most 17% (and now 9%) of the electricity we built reactors. We therefore now need about 10 times more reactors to have 100% nuclear-produced electricity. Then we need about twice as much to replace most of fossil fuels. Therefore 20x reactors are needed. Known accessible uranium reserves (~130 years for the existing reactor fleet, and therefore about 6 years for the needed 20x fleet) are not sufficient to sustain this. It was not considered as a challenge as we know of a way (breeding) to close the uranium cycle, thus obtaining x100 more energy. However our numerous and very expensive attempts to industrialize breeding all failed flat ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ). If it is not clear please allow me to avoid wasting my time trying to explain it more clearly. > you are complaining that it's 94% carbon free Nuclear is NOT carbon-free (even a 100% nuclear electricity emits, mainly due to uranium mining and enrichment), moreover it needs fossil fuel backup. I'm not complaining, just showing that your statement ("We could have had zero-carbon grid 50 years ago, in the 70’s") isn't accurate (to put it with a friendly tone). > I am familiar enough with the difference > This argument is a farse No. It is not about primary/final energy ( https://ourworldindata.org/energy-definitions https://ourworldindata.org/energy-definitions ). You wrote "Now millions of people will be displaced or dead by climate change and that could have been prevented" and I showed that is a farce. > we could have nuclear powered container ships I doubt so. Think insurance, to begin with. Civilian nuclear exists only because all nations using it neglect to insure it properly, as an exception. How exactly would such a ship be competitive if they cannot access to many (more and more nations are phasing-out nuclear) territorial waters and ports? Moreover all existing nuclear ships are exploited by military personal (yes, even ice-breakers), that is to say in a context where the TCO is way (way!) higher than in a commercial ship. The amount of available uranium is also a challenge: all those new reactors will deplete the reserves and lead to some crisis. To begin with... > if we really wanted, nuclear powered airplanes. Source? > You can't have solar/wind powered ships unless you are going back to sails Nope. "solar/wind powered ships" now mainly means "electric ship". Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_boat#List_of_battery-electric_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_boat#List_of_battery-... Moreover it can also be done with some e-fuel.