>How many?
As many as you can build. You run out of engineers and carpenters before you make too many reactors in time.
>What timeframe?
Now.
>Costs?
Doesn't matter that much. Easily cheaper than climate change.
>Who builds them?
Whoever can.
>Which models?
Hardly matters, any model is safer than burning coal.
>Where do we build them?
Doesn't matter. Any location is safer than burning coal.
>What effects does it have when?
Hope that we might have climate change to stop below 3 degrees.
This will convince nobody.
If you don't believe the IPCC storyline, nuclear is still best power source right now. But there is no hurry. We can safely dabble with renewables and batteries and such until oil, gas and coal run out. No political hard decisions are needed, because prices of fossil fuels will increase well in advance to any catastrophe. So it will become economically sound to produce energy in some other way. Maybe it won't be nuclear then, I don't really care.
- Will you volunteer to live by the nuclear plant or waste storage facilities?
- Will you work at or advise your friends & family to work there?
Future cannot be researched, calculated or predicted. You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in.
Sure it can. Otherwise you wouldn't know about the effects of climate change.
> You can just be worried about stuff and bet on some solutions to give your children a decent place to live in.
Use a bicycle. Don't fly. Don't make vacation on a cruise ship. Don't buy flown in goods. Don't eat meat. Don't reproduce. Recycle stuff. Get solar onto your roof. Heat with electricity from non-fossil fuels. Don't use a car.
Well actually we don't know. We have maybe a sophisticated guess at best. Knowledge requires data, that by definition cannot be gathered from future. At least not before someone invents a time machine.
Even the best forecasts we can make about anything are very poor. Look at a simple things like construction budgets or projected congestion of particular traffic system upgrade. They are usually off by magnitude of order. And this is well documented by Kahnemann.
In regards of atmosphere, it might be that IPCC has overestimated the whole thing with a fat margin. Or it might be we are all dead no matter what we do.
>Don't reproduce.
If I don't do that, then I'm not going to give a shit about this phenomena anyhow.
>Heat with electricity from non-fossil fuels.
Where I'm from, that's impossible without the whole state going non-fossil fuel. Which again is practically impossible without nuclear.
Heating accounts probably about half of my carbon footprint. And with rough winters that's a lot. I've already minimized everything else.
I fear that any savings in CO2 emissions will be useless, due to an increasing world population.
> Heating accounts probably about half of my carbon footprint
Heating, travel, transportation, industrial production, production of chemicals, production of concrete/cement ( https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844 ), food production, ... all those need to be addressed across the whole spectrum of climate-active gas - not just Co2, but also Methan and others.
Not having kids would help, but suicide would help more.
Many things matter, but big things matter more than small things. Electricity, traffic, industrial production and heating are all big things. All linked to energy production.
If nuclear proponents want to be taken serious, they need to answer those kinds of questions. Currently nuclear is stagnating on a global scale.