@kravietz Well, fusion is definitely the hope, but looking at its history, I don't think it's on time to save us from climate change.
Given that ITER is successful, we would have left less than 3 years to bring it out of Prototype status, build production halls, and rollout facilities around the world.
But only when scientists didn't get things wrong (which turns out, they might did due to north pole melting) and we produce less or equal CO2 than 2018, which also is not the case.
You're perfectly right in that we need carbon-free economy ASAP. But that's the point of nuclear exactly: it's the *only* carbon free and scalable energy source we have today.
Solar and wind - investment costs are huge due to low efficiency (15-40%), and they can't work alone due to intermittent nature. Technologies to deal with that are at the same stage as ITER - a decade away.
@sheogorath So for example France did just that using nuclear and renewables. Their energy related CO2 emissions are below 100 gCO2eq/kWh - last week they were below 50 even.
Germany scared itself to death with nuclear, and closed still operational plants, switching instead to coal and fossil gas. Their emissions are usually 3-6x worse than France.
In terms of decarbonization, France closed its last coal plant in 2007, while Germany just *opened* a new one thus year.
@kravietz Well, in Germany I agree the situation is a bit weird. But not really for technical but more for bureaucratic reasons. The number of new wind power plants last year is on a historical low due to appeals of citizens and a whole state blocking it. Reduction of subsidies for renewable energies in general and further subsidizing of coal-based energy sources.
So yes, there has to change something, but I don't think towards nuclear power plants.
Certainly no more nuclear power in Germany, because society is so terrorized by the Greens that no rational arguments are going to work until that generation passes away so another 20 years.