>
I used to think that the world was transitioning to solar, wind, and batteries. This, too, was false. Trillions of dollars were spent on wind and solar projects over the last 20 years, yet the world’s dependence on fossil fuels declined only 3 percentage points, from 87% to 84%.> I used to believe nuclear energy was dangerous and nuclear waste was a big problem. In fact, nuclear is the safest and most reliable way to generate low-emission electricity, and it provides the best chance of reducing CO2 emissions.
These two points taken together make me wonder how many trillions of dollars would have to be invested in nuclear to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels from 84% to zero? Also, I wonder how nuclear holds up in the "Security: Does an energy source enable a country to maintain its autonomy" department. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p..., over 40% of Uranium is coming from Kazakhstan, which is itself not a democratic country and a close ally of Russia. And the countries with the most nuclear plants have next to no Uranium production of their own. So much for autonomy...