FBRshill

>Note that in GIEC report, nuclear (fission or fusion) was not identified as a major solution to climate change (only contribute 10% of the whole). The main contributors were green energies.

Probably because they were making assumptions based on LWRs and using LCOE to asses the costs, instead of something sensible like EROEI

U-235 is the least useful fuel medium for long term energy generation, the us along has about 57 million TWh of breedable u-238 just sitting around in cooling pools and storage facilities

You know we can breed centuries of fuel if we used u-238 to pu-239 cycles right?

Money/finance is the problem here, we've had the technology to make surplus exergy damn near free (in the ExROEI sense) since the 1960s but financial systems we had in place combined with political reticence and NIMBYISM/Nuclear fears have made the transition to the only energy source than can keep our modern civilization alive unattractive on the fiat ledger, and our civilizational malaise will continue to grow as our useful surplus exergy shrinks and shrinks with the available fossil fuels getting harder and harder (exergetically) to extract. Hydrocarbons were our consumable rope ladder to nuclear fission breeding cycles but we are almost out of remaining rungs to to make the climb IMO. Ban fiat currency, ban debt spending, ban the wallstreet casino and start the most ambitious project in human history to build out massive industrial parks around advanced cycle fission breeder reactors where we perform electrolysis, haber-bosch, direct carbon capture (atmospheric or from industrial exhaust) and manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons, while we directly electrify every single part of our civilization that is sensible to power that way (like homes, offices, stores and consumer transportation) with wind and solar.