The nuclear solution has been there this whole time.
Too many solar / wind dummies getting in the way of this being a viable replacement claiming 'oh yeah these green sources can cleanly swap into coal/gas plants' while completely ignoring base load / growth requirements which nuclear can fill without being dependent on external variables.
> The nuclear solution has been there this whole time.
Yes, but it's more subtle than that.
Despite the naysayers, and those that don't accept science and fact, nuclear, is clean, is safe, and is available right now. Deaths due to nuclear power station (construction, accidents,
Amongst the many problems with uranium-based nuclear power is: government legislation and control, government obsession with also producing weapons grade fuel, preventing other countries (Iran, North Korea) from having it, and lastly cost, as a consequence of all of these things.
And because of the weapons grade part, and other reasons, thorium has never been pursued. But China is, https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reacto..., and it seems like the West is going to be in China's pocket again, if it is successful.
As for fusion. That's still 30 years away as usual.
Fusion isn't a commercially viable solution I agree.
The focus should be on traditional nuclear fission reactions. Indeed China are leading the development, but the USA still remains the number 1 producer in nuclear power followed by France.
While you do mention governments, it's really a popularity issue that prevents widespread acceptance and adoption.
Similar to COVID vaccinations, people need more education on Nuclear as a safe and real solution to replace carbon based energy generation technologies.
My country Australia is an example of how ineffective governments are in educating people on what the right thing to do is.
You mention cost as an issue, but it's only an issue due to man-made red tape and systems put in place by interest groups to force nuclear out of the public and make it so difficult to attain. People pandered on the same rhetoric about lithium batteries and look where we are now. The economics will work themselves out once things are placed into motion in that direction.
At the end of the day, we should be willing to pay rather than being cheap about the environment and letting natural disaster after natural disaster continue.
Too many solar / wind dummies getting in the way of this being a viable replacement claiming 'oh yeah these green sources can cleanly swap into coal/gas plants' while completely ignoring base load / growth requirements which nuclear can fill without being dependent on external variables.