> No, as there are very few and less and less scientists claiming that climate change cannot be observed. Can you quote one?

Here is an article that is climate sceptic without being completely crazy : https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-go....

It's not arguing that climate change is not happening, only that the net effect is positive, if the warming is only moderate.

> In many nations (France, the US, Russia...) Chernobyl didn't really impede nuclear development.

I don't really believe that, Chernobyl certainly seemed to affect the zeitgeist when it happened. But these things are hard to prove one way or another.

> Plate tectonics was only accepted during the 1960's...

Almost nothing is 100% certain, but the probability that some bedrock formations are stable over the next 1000 years is pretty high (really close to 100%). And minor leakage 800 years from now is unlikely to cause much harm, especially if we have not already blasted each other with nukes before that time.

> This is tied to uncertainties about long-term effect of low-level exposure.

We actually know quite a lot about this. The LNT model that is often used, is a worst case scenario for dealing with risks too small to measure. Even if it is true, for any individual, such exposure exposes them to a risk that is so small it cannot be measured. One could say "There is no evidence that such small doses are harmful." Another way to put it, is that the risks of such low levels of radiation are smaller than getting a covid vaccine.

And that is the worst case scenario. There are also good arguments why even the unmeasurably tiny (but still assumed by LNT) is too pessimistic. Here is a relatively recent paper arguing for dropping the LNT model:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/

Radioactivity exposure below 100mSv is the limit for what leads to measurable increased cancer risks. During the cleanup from Fukushima, only about 174 workers received doses higher than that. In that group, the lifetime expected expected increase in cancer cases is 3 people. (From a baseline of 70 to an increased level of 73).

https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushim....

Compare that to the 15899 deaths from the Tsunami itself, that we never talk about anymore.

> This doesn't preclude the logical conclusion: the cleaner way has a major advantage.

Two fallacies here:

1) You assume that a better choice is available. That is only true if we will actually go for an alternative policy that is, in the end, cleaner. I don't see the proof of that yet. (Coal can also cause long term harm, and already has.) (Nirvana fallacy)
2) Even if you do end up in a cleaner scenario, you still have to prove that the difference is "major", or leave that word out.

> Even in such a world some will obtain a nuclear weapon, even at a very high price.

If the price of nuclear weapons go up, I'm all for that. I'm not worried about 1 or 100 or even 1000 nuclear weapons going off 500 years from now. But 1000000 bombs going off at once would be a shame.

Oh, and even 100 going off will cause way more damage than some leak in a storage pool.

>> Obviously paranoia

> This is subjective. In the 2000's many touted that, obviously, a western-designed reactor, well-built, supervised and exploited by serious people just cannot let any dangerous material wander away, then Fukushima happened

Whether is paranoia is not subjective, but it may be whether or not it is obvious may be subjective.

Whoever promised that western designed reactors would never have a leak, over-promised. Over-promising is risky. But the real damage caused by the leak (from radiation) is low-to-none, even if you just compare to the damage that would have been caused by any alternative cause of electricity over the Fukushima plant's lifetime. This is objectively true.

> It doesn't prove that a dollar (or euro, for this matter) invested in nuclear stays available for 'renewables', and this doesn't come as a surprise. Therefore lenghty and overbudget nuclear projects delivering clonky plants aren't as efficient as 'renewables'.

I don't think you're right, but let's assume that you are. But what it DOES prove, is that whatever policy France as been conducting has been much more effective in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, even if the French investments in renewables are tiny compared to Germany's. Maybe the French overpaid, but I don't think so.

>> most current plants have shown themselves to be safe enough > safety levels should be approximately at a Gen3 level

> Aren't all current models (EPR, AP1000...) exactly of this kind?

No, there are also Gen 3+ reactors in operation.

My claim is that capping the security level at what Gen 3 can provide (or even slightly lower) will make future reactors cheaper, since alternative means can be used to achieve that security (advancements in gen 3+ or gen 4 can be used to compensate from some compromises in gen3 security measues, instead of being added on top of those measures).

> Don't forget to let them talk to people who lived near Chernobyl and Fukushima during the accidents...

For most kids in the world, travelling to Ukraine or Japan is economically unviable. Also, it's not good education to focus on worst cases. What effect do you think it would have to have school-kids talk with survivors of gang-rape by african immigrants? Maybe we don't want the kind of racism that would generate?

> In my opinion and whatever the subject such 'education' quickly becomes sheer propaganda and may even transmute into totalitarianism.

There are certainly expamples that favour your prediction. But we have to teach the kids SOMETHING, and I prefer that they learn what is scientifically defensible, instead of what is preferred by some ideology.

> There are scientists, including nuclear scientists, against nuclear energy (in France: B. Laponche), and many explicitly prefer 'renewables'.

Name a belief, and there will probably be at least 1 scientist believing it. Those who are particularily commited to some religion or ideology may very well support opinions that are far removed from the scientific consensus.

B. Laponche doesn't even have an English Wikipedia page, so I have to presume he is not an authority in the field.

> The main aspect of this is trust placed in politicians and science, and from what I see it falls down.

This is a good point. "Science" has been compromised over the last few years. Which is why there is a need to educate the population, and in particular the youngest generation, about what is real science and who masquerade as science (and who are in-between). Ideologes who use "Science" as a weapon must have their pants pulled down.

> That's the core of the argument. In my opinion there is nothing new to discover/develop (it could be useful but isn't necessary), only building is needed: production units adequately spread out (to reduce storage needs to a level we can satisfy), powerlines, storage...

You may hold this opinion, but the fact is that it hasn't been done yet. Also, I've yet to see a full-fledged plan that covers all aspects in detail, including cost estimates from anything from storage needs to building and maintaining super-high-voltage grids to enable long-distance transfers.

As we speak, the spot price of electricity in Southern Norway is 10-15x higher than Northern Norway, due to limitations of the grid. (about 0.011 vs 0.145 euro/KWh). This difference is entirely due to exports.

Further up you claimed that renewables are cheaper than nuclear power. My counter argument that, whether or not you're right, France has already paid the difference. My estimate is that for renewables to be price-competitive as a stable energy source, huge investments in grid-capacity and/or storage is needed, which will bring the price up to a level that is likely to exceed the cost of nuclear, given currently available technology.

If storage technology continues to fall exponentially, we will surely/hopefully get there within this century, but I don't fully buy that simply distributing production is enough (until a full economic analysis is presented).