Going 'full nuclear' without capping the per-capita energy budget is still going to release a very large amount of energy. Besides that heating in many places is based on natural gas. Then there is the per kilo-watt hour cost of nuclear energy which is way higher than solar or wind when taken over the full lifetime of the installation including the eventual cleanup / disposal.
Nuclear energy is an option but it isn't the only option and it has serious drawbacks, just like every other option on the table today.
The best thing we can do is to limit our consumption. But that's easy to say from the point of view of the developed world, where consumption is excessive. It will be more than offset by the developing countries gains leaving us with a situation that is net worse than things are today even if we do our best. This is not a simple problem and naive one sentence solutions are not going to get us to a sustainable situation.
> Then there is the per kilo-watt hour cost of nuclear energy which is way higher than solar or wind when taken over the full lifetime of the installation including the eventual cleanup / disposal.
If we went full nuclear the cost per kWh would go down a lot. Costs are high because of minimal investment in the last several decades, western countries have not been building NPP and therefore aren't good (i.e. efficient) at it.
> The best thing we can do is to limit our consumption. But that's easy to say from the point of view of the developed world, where consumption is excessive. It will be more than offset by the developing countries gains leaving us with a situation that is net worse than things are today even if we do our best.
The cognitive dissonance is jarring. For the reasons you yourself state, clearly limiting consumption is NOT the solution.
But the greens put a stop to that, so I find it hard to take them - and anyone else who, like you, writes paragraphs about things that in reality do not matter - seriously.