You appear to agree that solar and wind and batteries are the best options for most of the world even if your optimistic nuclear price point is reached.
So it's not clear what you are arguing against? Isn't that the best way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels which are a global commodity?
Eventually, perhaps, but I see fully renewable as just slightly less sci fi than fusion or thorium.
Instead, I'm seeing countries like Germany restart their dirty, old, lignite fueled power plants (due to lack of natural gas, another, slightly cleaner, fossil fuel), because "environmentalist" organizations have been fighting against nuclear for the last 40 years or more.
Germany has TRIED to build up a lot of renewable capacity, but have hardly built up more than the electricity provided by the nuclear they shut down.
What I want is for us to SHUT DOWN all fossil fuel plants ASAP, stop using natural gas for heating and oil based fuels for most transportation.
This should and could have been started 40 years ago, if it were not for the scaremongers.
I welcome all renewable initiatives that are able to prove they can deliver stable power at a competitive price, and wish them the best of luck. I do NOT welcome the Utopia-chasers that promote renewables as part of their virtue signaling, while either being unrealistic or deceitful about motives, costs, challenges around stability, etc (both before and after investments are made).
And this is especially bad when they spread lies about the safety level of nuclear (either direct lies, or more likely when talking about "radiation" as something dangerous regardless of intensity).
I do realize that such behavior exists in all camps, but I find it especially bad when so called "environmentalists" have promoted policies that have had the net effect of NOT being able to reduce emissions nearly as much as we could have, while still causing prices to increase and ALSO maximize our dependence on Putin and various Arab dictatorial kings and princes.
And btw, while you seem to be charitable about nuclear, only arguing from a cost perspective, there are plenty of organizations out there that still place nuclear in the "dirty" camp alongside fossil fuels when arguing about strategies for the future.
So, while I'm certainly supporting most initiatives that aim to improve renewable power production, I think we (and especially Europe) should invest in a relatively large number of new, reasonably priced nuclear plants, for instance based on recent Korean designs.
Corruption potential. It's pretty typical for large long term projects to 'go bankrupt' and the cleanup fund is mysteriously empty. There are also a lot of hidden externalities -- publicly funded security, infrastructure, concessions required to keep fuel producers placated. It's too centralized for believable complete accounting.
Geopolitical. Adoption of nuclear outside of UK/France/USA/China/Russia essentially tips the global power balance even further in favour of colonial powers and corps that have caused the problem in the first place and continue to export mass suffering.
Incomplete. Most of the world will never be allowed to have enrichment capabilities, and many countries will never be allowed a nuclear program at all. This means low burnup reactors, and there is not enough uranium for a complete replacement to primary energy at 3% burnup.
Consistent overpromising. Predictions for large projects seem to be consistently wrong when they're 40 years out.
Cost doesn't look great anymore when you include cleanup. Incidents will happen, especially if regulations are relaxed. Even if the rate goes down tenfold we'll still be talking on the order of one a decade, and spending a trillion on cleanup starts making other solutions look pretty great.
I think my main objection with your points is that I see nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels, NOT as an alternative to renewables.
As for each point, I will start with the last:
> Cost doesn't look great anymore when you include cleanup.
Actual harm caused by nuclear is miniscule when compared to fossil fuels. Chernobyl caused somewhere between 1000 and 100000 casualties, probably less than air pollution from fossil fuels cause EACH YEAR, only in Europe.
Wind and even hydro also create considerable environmental effects, so the alternative cost should not be seen as zero.
There is no evidence (at least not conclusive evidence) that exposure to radiation doses below 80-100mSv cause any health hazard, and a lot of the "cleanup" and other measures are done to prevent exposure to doses that are often below 10mSv per person, and are probably not needed.
> Corruption potential.
I live in a country with very low levels of classical corruption, luckily. I think corruption affects everything, and should be dealt with as a separate problem.
> Geopolitical. Adoption of nuclear outside of UK/France/USA/China/Russia ..
I suppose India should be added to your list. Anyway, some of the biggest deposits are in countries like Australia. Obviously, I don't want to force anyone to adopt nuclear, but it's a lot easier to find friendly suppliers of nuclear fuel than natural gas.
> Incomplete.
Same thing.
> Consistent overpromising.
40 years ago, reactors were typically built to only last 40 years. (They were also cheaper to build back then). Only newer models are designed for longer lifespans. Anyway, from my perspective, most reactors continue to deliver despite old age, if well maintained, and they don't shut down just because Putin has a temper tantrum.
If you're living in Europe, just imagine what the price of electricity would be if France's electricity depended on natural gas the same way the German does...
So it's not clear what you are arguing against? Isn't that the best way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels which are a global commodity?