Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. Source: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019

> There is no free lunch here

Indeed, however the risk induced at run-time and by its waste seems higher with nuclear than with renewables.

>> Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option.

>This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid is massively overbuilt, 2) battery storage massively improves.

A third quest is local production (solar roof panels and the like).

A 4th quest is energy and matter savings (less production => less nefarious emissions).

Also let's not neglect that "renewables" is a mix (solar, wind, hydro...).

As for the 1) (grid) we also have many subpathes, continental-level interconnections and smartgrid being the most prominent, all useful for all "sources" (even nuclear) and all already actively explored.

> The argument for nuclear is, again, based on what we have right now

What we have now is ageing nuclear powerplants (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Franc... , this is also true in the US ) needing huge maintenance-and-security-related retrofits, and running projects of plant-building which fail or run massively over-schedule and over-budget (see Flamanville and Olkiluoto). Fukushima bumped up the NIMBY effect. Massive and expensive R&D done for 10's of years delivered no quantum leap (breeders, for example, albeit benefiting for huge R&D budgets, are in the mud since the 1950's... but some nuclear advocates consider them today as a promising path!).

Financing a nuclear powerplant becomes more and more difficult because it is very capital intensive and only realistic along with the aforementioned mass-production challenge, and the fact that the cost of renewable energy production falls sharply.

In other words one nuclear powerplant costs way too much, we lost the capacity to build it on budget and schedule, there are less and less sites willing to host a plant... and we need to build many (10x the existing capacity, for an all-nuke gridpower, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods... , given that it is vastly insufficient when it comes to our climate-related goal ) in a short timeframe.

Moreover, after 70 years of nuclear plant activity, we don't have waste long-term repositories, hence we will offer dubtious gifts to our children, and their children, and so on...

Is it really a realistic path or a dead-end?

Are we willing to bet on this or (XOR) on deploying on the 3 major leads summarized above? Each egg in the nuclear basket isn't used for the main 4 quests, and therefore isn't IMHO wisely used.

In France the nuclear sector maintains approximately 220000 jobs, and this is a huge factor for politicians (in order to be elected you better avoid to condemn those jobs).

> In the public discourse we only discuss electricity and transportation

Sadly this is true and I'm also concerned. We do "still need new technologies", however "I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket" nor do we "want to bet too much on things going just perfect", and giving the urgency (we indeed need to quickly reach a "negative emissions" status) I'm convinced that the quest 4 cannot be avoided: we need to reduce the amount of energy and stuff we "use". This is the only sure method readily available. Most politicians and citizen hate it because this is a dark promise.

The potential for CC&S is limited in Europe. About this and some "100% renewables" approaches: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wene.128

There are even more ambitious plans, some not from crackpots:
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(19)30225-...