>> For all those accidents there is no consensus about the long-term impact on health and the environment

> This is like saying there is no consensus about climate change.

No, as there are very few and less and less scientists claiming that climate change cannot be observed. Can you quote one? Even those claiming that anthropogenic causes are negligible are only a tiny and quickly disappearing group, while polemics about the effects of exposure to radionucleides (hormesis, external/internal...) stems many polemics among scientists since at least the 1950's until now.

>> At Fukushima cleaning-up

> Japanese response was irrational

Without even challenging this thesis: the population in Japan is well-known as organized, highly educated, obedient and ready for sacrifice.

> since Chernobyl until today, lack of investment in Nuclear has certainly been made up for primarily by coal

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

>> Nuclear waste

> That's pretty unlikely if the mine is deep enough

The depth of our knowledge about all this is quite limited. Plate tectonics was only accepted during the 1960's...

> This is the thing about radioactivity, most people don't know the difference between 100Bq/g, 100Bq/l and 100Bq/m^3.

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

>> Moreover this is also tied to ethic standpoint: do we have the right to let such bad stuff to future generations

> This applies to almost everything we do

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

> Imagine a world where humanity has already used up all economically available fissile materials as fuel. Maybe we can stop being scared about nuclear war?

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

>> One being that what was deemed adequate safety-wise isn't anymore, leading to new costs.

> 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.

> Even between reactors of the same nominal security class, there is huge variation in cost. I would claim this is due to poor execution, corruption, political medelling, etc.

This is indeed part of the causes.

> My bet is that France will have lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions than Germany in 2032 and possibly all the way to 2040

Maybe, however since 1999 both nations only further decarbonate thanks to renewables.

> nuclear and "renewables" are not mutually exclusive, and if France is able to deploy both, it proves that point.

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'.

> 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?

> modern technology should be aimed at lowering prices instead of improving safety even further.

As far as I know that's exactly the trend since the 2010's, well-illustrated by the quest for SMRs.

> and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar (leading to new problems, such a shttps://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-... )

> Take school (around 12-17 years old) children on school trips to places of high air polution, show them pictures and videos of what air polution is doing to human and animal health. Let them breathe the air near some old dirty coal plant for a few hours.
> Then take them to a nuclear plant

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

> in areas where nuclear is partially accepted, eductation through government controlled channels can absolutely be used

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

> to spread mainstream scientific knowledge

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

> If such an activity can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10%

The main aspect of this is trust placed in politicians and science, and from what I see it falls down. More and more think that nobody can understand, and therefore predict, and therefore adequately govern anymore. Many technological 'solutions' were implemented then created a major problem. The real outcome of 'techno-solutionism' is debatable and subjective, it may even be positive, however this defiance seems ubiquitous and government-induced 'education' aiming at countering will IMHO at best fail flat.

> we will be that much closer to have fully developed the renewable technolgies needed to make renewables a fully viable approach

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...