"Ugggh. You and me are the problem, not some poor smuck in Nigeria or Bengladesh, who's energy consumption in a year is probably comparable to ours in a month"

Indeed, it is very dissapointing to see people talk about Africa as if it's the problem, while a single western nation consumes and pollutes more than the entire coninent combined.

"Nuclear reactors need fossile fuels to work (in the supply chain): To sustain nuclear you need to have a thriving militaro-industrial complex, which in all sorts of manner requires vast ressources which you must somehow buy (or steal"

Nuclear does not depend on any rare materials.

This is only true in a sence that nuclear requires heavy industry to build, and heavy industry depends on oil.

But so does production of train and bridges, solar panels and large wind turbines. In fact wind requires more total built infrastructure than nuclear does. We have to transition to carbon free industry either way, so I am not seeing how this argument works.

"we want to keep the worlds power structure and thus depend on a moonshot to make things work or do we accept to stop doing what has been central to maintain the domination of global north on global south and just do the easy obvious thing"

I think this is a big brain bug, people often reject ideas that challange existing power structures as just too crazy. The trouble is most do it without realising what they are defending and why.