Iron-Air Batteries Are Here. They May Alter the Future of Energy.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42532492/ir...
In any case coal is not going away and there is no single “answer” to the planet’s energy needs. A resilient grid requires a portfolio of energy sources including nuclear but it’s by no means the single answer as the title of the post suggests.
Uranium is “carbon free” but “radioactive waste full” and creates multigenerational environmental debt in the form of waste - nuke proponents usually hand wave and talk in generalities when it comes to this topic. Note the comment that “90% of materials in a nuclear reactor can be recycled” deftly sidestepping the 10% that will live on in deadly form for thousands of years with no solution in sight.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3568623/
Google “Biswas Washington University Enhanced Electrostatic Precipitation” for more
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3817794
Google “Axelbaum Washington University staged pressurized oxy combustion” for more
"More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.
The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do."
But even if like US does (i.e. does not re-use the waste), less than half of olympic pool is pretty small given the amount of energy produced. Ideally US would re-use the waste, and vitrified the final waste, and then producing even less volume of waste.
Then store it. Properly packed it is not "in deadly form for thousands of years with no solution in sight". Most countries store it deep for 50 years, and then it is safe to dispose on near-surface disposal at ground level, or in caverns below ground level.
Radioactivity is everywhere e.g. with radon (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/ra...) at 4 pCi/L 7 our 1000 people will develop lung cancer. Flight attendants get their fair share too. Our body is prepared to fix itself when attacked by radiation. https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
There are also battery tech like liquid metal that is being more widely tested and suits grid storage. That scales like crazy if it works.
Note that the cooling argument would be the same for coal or gas power plant. They work the same way. So, until enough storage is in place, we might need some base production, and it would require access to cold source (river or ocean). France had to reduce the activity of some nuclear power plants last summer because they have rules when it comes to river temperature. The next 8 reactors that France is planning to build would likely be build on the ocean's shore for that reason.
The cost of nuclear electricity is mostly impacted by the cost of money. That is why the cost of electricity from a UK nuclear power plant is more expensive than from France nuclear power plant. The UK used private capital (higher interest) when France use gov funds (lower interest). It is correct that it takes time to build a plant, and it requires expertise. But it is also true that a power plant can run for decades (US and France pushing to 80 years) as anything in a plant can be upgraded over time (except the pool).
Until there is an efficient storage technology that can be deployed at large scale, we might need to run some nuclear power plants. No idea for how long ?