I think I just got jumped.

Sorry, I don't quite understand that phrase. Does that mean you feel kind of attacked?! I hope not - this was not my goal. I think we can just learn by engaging in discussions with one another. And so far, I am very much enjoying our encounter. :)

You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.

Well, I mean it took me over an hour to compile that answer, because I didn't want to spread false information. I am (re)learning a lot the stuff as well, and I kind of like to study the matter again. So I will gladly take your thoughts.

You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them

Well, yes, I did. As I said, it took me already over an hour to compile the existing answer and the needs of storage capacity in the energy system is reeeaaaally complex and counter intuitive at some points - especially if you need to understand the dependencies of the individual units in an energy-system as well at the same time. So it would have taken me at least another hour to give that topic my due diligence.

We can talk about that if you want / are interested. But I think we need to skip the nuclear power topic then, because otherwise it will get too complex and time consuming.

I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that "Science Will Save Us"

Oh god. I hate people that are blindly trusting in "Science inventing a magic pill - we don't have to change anything!!1!".

People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built

I know. And I was not talking about some "magical future solution" - I am thinking more about solutions that are already existing and have existed and proven viable for over a couple of decades. And they don't need to include nuclear!

However it is a known tech, and an effective one

I mean, it kind of is NOT effective - at least not cost effective (as I hopefully have pointed out clear enough). We can build "known tech that is effective" which will not be a graveyard for billions of dollars and without the potentially catastrophic consequences nuclear power has. I am not advocating for "sitting on our hands". We need to act quick and change our energy systems for the better - but nuclear energy is just not a viable solution for that. Luckily, there is existing technology that can do the job.

Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.

I am afraid, that it is not as simple as you think it might be. The "availability" is kind of a deal breaker when it comes to nuclear.

You still haven't provided a number for "how much nuclear" we need to "do the job", so I am ending with a couple questions instead:

• Are you aware how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant?
• Do you know how much (usable) radioactive material there is on the planet?

(I can tell you if you don't want to do the research - just tell me.)