> I think fissions failure is a inability to plan for complete failure scenarios, were society folds in on itself, suppliers are no longer available or power plants are actually fought over.

Are you referring to the need for electricity now at the Ukraine plants? Newer technologies such as NuScale require no external electricity for their cooling. The reaction only occurs if there is water and when all the water evaporates then the reaction stops.

> Already economic downturns corelate with fission problems, as plants are not properly maintained. We have one blowing up every thirty years atm. Our reach exceeds our grasp, and there is no shame in admitting to that.

Gas turbines in aviation also blew up way more often in the past than they do now. Who says the blowing up of plants is a constant? There have been many improvements in safety. Also, apart from the Three Mile Island accident, there haven't been major nuclear problems in the US in the last 50 or so years. Furthermore, the thing that lead to the Chernobyl disaster is not possible, by law, in modern reactors. Furthermore, newer reactors require an extra casing of concrete which would also have contained the Chernobyl disaster. You can even fly an airplane in those newer housing buildings and nothing would happen (with the building at least).

There has been a major back-logging in nuclear equipments investments, so big in fact, that some countries who should by right be netto exporters of energy (france) became importers. Its a valid technology in a theoretical world, that does all the upkeep measures, does actual credible threat analysis.

I have yet to see such a world.

Its simply about economics of scale.

If you built nuclear at scale, then these problems solve themselves. Just as France solved them in 15 years in the 70/80s.

Just as these problems were solved for solar/wind by economics of scale.

Solar/wind was not economical, it was basically forced into being economical by creating economics of scale.

France currently has a problem at scale maintaining them?

In 2014 the government they elected basically went all in switching to renewables and they actually stopped or delayed a lot of stuff.

That said, well, they stopped building new reactors, most of their reactors were built in 15 years in the 70/80s. Since then they have not done as much as they should have and all those reactors are starting to need more maintenance now.

Because they have not built much new things, they don't have as many people with knowledge as they used to.

But they are managing most of these issues pretty well overall.

I would say France did pretty well having 40 years of green energy.