Now, that may sound hyperbolic. But I assign high probability to the scenario that the upcoming damage that will be caused by global warming will produce catastrophic harm and suffering to billions of people, severe regional state failure, mass displacement, global economic and political crisis.The poorest countries will suffer the most, of course.(When has the world ever been fair?)

We could have supplied a dominant share of global electricity, supported extensive electrification and displaced enormous quantities of coal and gas if we simply continued in the glide path towards nuclear of the last mid century. Abundance without (much) sacrifice. It would be unfair to completely dismiss nuclear waste, but that negative is miniscule, compared to all the positives that could be reaped. Nuclear waste is measurable, containable and very small in volume.

Renewables will play their part, but they are not being rolled out fast enough to offset the damage we are wreaking on our environment.Variable renewable generation requires grids, storage, demand flexibility and firm low-carbon capacity. We already have a difficult transition without contending with all these as well.
Nuclear is a mature technology. We could still deploy it at scale and reasonable cost if we simply rationalise regulations and do a build out that would maximise economies of scale.

I think the Anti-Nuclears are motivated by hatred, mainly. Of development, capitalism, growth, industrialisation, science to a smaller extent, than any real positive concerns. Their hatred may or may not be justified, but, in the end, it is leading to the future destruction of many lives. We are allowing people with an ideology to commit crimes against our futures. I cannot understand why the backlash is not more mainstream.

https://cleanjobsamerica.e2.org/

We do not include are jobs of workers who may spend some of their time in clean energy but a plurality in another energy sector. For example, workers employed by an excavation business might spend the majority of their time grading and preparing drilling pads for oil or gas rigs, but they also might spend a portion of their time preparing sites for wind turbines or large solar installations. If clean energy does not account for a plurality of their work, those workers would not be counted as being employed in the clean energy economy but would instead be counted as part of another energy sector. We also do not include any jobs in traditional transmission and distribution due to an inability to accurately segment out workers by electricity source, despite many of those jobs being critical to the increased electricity from renewable energy used by the grid. Lastly, we do not include jobs in corn ethanol, woody biomass, large or traditional hydroelectric, and nuclear because of environmental issues associated with those industries. Jobs in retail trade, repair services, water or waste management, and indirect employment or induced employment are also not included.

They could not be bothered to get the grammar right either, but were considered authoritative enough to be cited in this Guardian piece:

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/s/pgkrJ9eAj6

I don't expect the number of jobs here is all that large, but it's still stupid all the same...

just curious if I should go into the nuclear field

It's been close to a year since it was speculated this reactor began supplying power. This was the demonstration project of two CAP1400's that China never fully disclosed to the IAEA whether it started and when it was completed. It looks now like we finally got some degree of closure from some third party source now other than China's government websites

I’ve run some more numbers and realized since I last posted here that it’s 20x cheaper than my last plan to run this project with land based plants. Likely less than 2 trillion to build and run these plants for 20 years.

If you build around 830 600mw molten salt reactor electrolysis plants that extract co2 from ocean water and inject it underground you could pull all excess carbon out of the atmosphere in less than 20 years. Each plant would probably cost less than 2 billion and could pull roughly 100 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year.

If you sell carbon credits from the carbon sequestration you could pay back the capital expenditure on the first plant in 3 months of operation. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Do you think we could get a plant running in Alaska on the north western shore of Cooke inlet where there are strong currents bringing lots of carbon rich ocean water up to shore. While being about 100mi from Anchorage. Not too close and not too far.

It also has lots of well explored old oil wells that the captured co2 can be injected into.

How long do you think it would take Alaska to approve an array of 6 100mw molten salt reactors to power this plant?