>> there are very few and less and less scientists claiming that climate change cannot be observed

> Here is an article that is climate sceptic without being completely crazy : https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-go....
> the net effect is positive, if the warming is only moderate.

It dates back 2013, and many studies were published since, showing that the warming isn't moderate. The main argument revolves around Pr. Tol (he is an economist, not a climatologist or physician) arguments, which since evolved and are to be put in perspective https://www.desmog.com/richard-tol/

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

> I don't really believe that

In France the plan ('Plan Messmer') was executed, not a single planed reactor was canceled (some sites were because the project infuriated local people, but other sites replaced them), until its end in 1999.

>> This is tied to uncertainties about long-term effect of low-level exposure.
> the risks of such low levels of radiation

This (LNT...) is not settled among scientists. Critics (for example in the very article you quoted) argue about observation made upon bomb survivors. One of the main problem with that is the way those studies were conducted. In Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example, scientists examined people and paid them for this. Therefore a large amount of people who were not exposed (too far away from the impact) lied about this in order to be examined, severely biasing the study. Moreover dead or very ill people tend to not go see scientists in order to be examined. Nuclear workers are also difficult to assess because many of them were (and even are, right now) not permanent workers (temporary/interim). Same for the 'liquidators'. And so on. As already stated some meta-studies paint a not-so-reinsuring reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

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

Because we cannot decide upon tsunami activity, however we sure can decide to abstain from running nuclear reactors. Some deaths were due to the panic triggered by the Fukushima nuclear plant accident.

> 1) You assume that a better choice is available

This is the core of the argument.

Renewables are cheaper (and going cheaper), induce no major risk nor dependency towards uranium (geostrategic risk + growing amount of emissions due to declining ore grade), nor difficult decommission, nor very dangerous waste.

And we know how to build them en masse, right now (this is not true anymore for nuclear reactors).

Adequately mixed (solar, wind...), spread out, and with help (storage, curtailment and backup) they generate continuously.

Storage solutions exist: hydraulic, V2G, green hydrogen...

Backup with modern gas turbines burning more and more green hydrogen (less and less methane) is OK (remember: even in nuclear-champion France fossil-fuel-burning plant produce approx 9% of the electricity, that is to say ~30 days per year).

Frankly this seems a no-brainer to me.

> the real damage caused by the leak (from radiation) is low-to-none

Many details are of importance here, for example only 3 reactors (out of 6) were active (all suffered a meltdown), there were not too may fuel assemblies (reactor #4 was even empty)... The main point is that any health-related assessment is difficult and can only be conducted at least 15 years after the accident («radiation-induced solid tumors usually take 10–15 years, and can take up to 40 years»).

> 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.

France's nuclear program started in 1970's, while France was very industrialized and rich (30 Glorieuses : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ) and under a real strategic duress (trying to alleviate the risk of oil embargo, well-perceived as strategic there after Arab-Israel wars then OPEP), not phasing-out existing (fossil-fuel) units and with a total consumption of electricity 1/3 of what it is since the 2010

Germany's program (Energiewende), really started in 2010, after many major economic crisi,s they weren't as (relatively rich) as France in the 1970s, they also were more de-industrialized (esp. heavy industry), they quickly phase-out nuclear existing units, the quantity of electricity to be produced is vastly superior, this was not a strategic program (and one may argue that is isn't really right now, compared to France's)...

> Maybe the French overpaid, but I don't think so.

It is very probable, as even the Court of Audit could not estimate the costs.

>> 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.

AS far as I know the only one were running at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant and are shut down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Pow...

> capping the security level at what Gen 3 can provide or even slightly lower) will make future reactors cheaper

This is very probably true, however the slightest incident happening to such a reactor may then impede this approach.

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

> it's not good education to focus on worst cases

Nor is it to completely hide them.

> What effect do you think it would have to have school-kids talk with survivors of gang-rape by african immigrants?

The point here is to insist upon the fact that african immigrants aren't the only type perpetrating such crimes. Local, white, christian or atheistic... one can easily find representatives of any type guilty of this.

> we have to teach the kids SOMETHING, and I prefer that they learn what is scientifically defensible

I agree, and when it comes to risk detailing in this way the renewable/nuclear debate may prove interesting and useful.

>> 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

I doubt most scientists would (explicitly and upon purely scientific criteria) favor nuclear over renewables.

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

He is old but used to be, in France. One cannot survive in any field without supporting it anymore.

> Ideologes who use "Science" as a weapon must have their pants pulled down.

Yes, and this is very difficult because tedious (not spectacular enough to stay present in mass-media).

(renewables)

> the fact is that it hasn't been done yet

The challenge (transition towards a new energetic system) is immense, the pursuit started recently, and our time of crisis does not facilitate.
However the results already are IMHO quite good: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_ind_ured/...

> I've yet to see a full-fledged plan that covers all aspects in detail

This is very difficult as even simply predicting the amount of electricity needed isn't possible, there are many (very distinct) hypothesis.

> including cost estimates from anything from storage needs

> to building and maintaining super-high-voltage grids to enable long-distance transfers.

Those are useful even with a 100% nuclear approach. Renewables only impact their dimensions.

> the spot price of electricity in Southern Norway is 10-15x higher than Northern Norway

Yes, a huge grid is key (whatever the type of production units).

> 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.

As stated no one knows how much public money costed the French nuclear program. Moreover the outcome will only be known after complete phase-out and decommission, because decommission-and-waste-mangement costs may skyrocket. Moreover any serious accident may completely change the total picture.

> for renewables to be price-competitive as a stable energy source, huge investments in grid-capacity and/or storage is needed

Both are, however probably to a lower extent than one may think as (as already stated) supergrids are useful (renewables only change the scale), and some storage (V2G...) may prove way cheaper than planned. Not even considering the cost of a really adequate insurance policy covering long-term nuclear risk.

> distributing production is enough

The core point is here: what effect does it have with respect to baseload, that is to say qualification of "insufficient production" state (to which extent? how often? how long?), and studies show that spreading out has a major beneficial effect (in a detailed case it divides overprovisions by 5).