Why *conventional* nuclear energy cannot possibly be the solution to the climate crisis

1^st premise: The solution to the climate crisis is to electrify everything, and to generate the electricity from (ideally) zero-carbon sources.^[1]

2^nd premise: Humanity’s total power consumption is about 18 terawatts.^[2]

3^rd Premise: Total recoverable reserves of uranium 235 correspond to about 10²² joules of fission energy.^[3]

  From the 2^nd and 3^rd premises, we can easily calculate that there are only sufficient reserves of recoverable uranium 235 for conventional nuclear energy to power the world for about a decade:

human power consumption = (18 terawatts)x(365 days/year)x(24 hours/day)x(60 minutes/hour)x(60 seconds/minute) = 5.7x10²⁰ watt-seconds/year ≈ 10²¹ joules/year

(10²² joules of fission energy)/(10²¹ joules/year of human power consumption) = 10 years, QED

  So if conventional nuclear energy isn’t up to the task of dealing with the climate crisis, then what about unconventional nuclear energy? Well, for years already for top climate scientist James Hansen has been calling for the rapid buildout of the integral fast reactor (IFR), to consume existing stockpiles of nuclear waste, and the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, to prevent more nuclear waste from being created. (An important point being that both the IFR and the LFTR can be made inherently much safer than today’s conventional nuclear reactors.)^[4]

  Nevertheless, in this writer’s (admittedly nonexpert) opinion, given the historical and probable future problems associated with breeder reactors (like the IFR), and the unproven nature of the LFTR, it is doubtful that unconventional nuclear energy is a superior solution to solar, wind, and other forms of non-nuclear renewable energy, which are already on hand. And—preemptively—the answer is no: baseload electrical power and the intermittency of solar and wind are not insurmountable problems for those forms of energy, the solution to both being the same thing, i.e., the virtual power plant (VPP). The enabling technologies of the VPP are the smart grid, FACTS (flexible AC transmission lines), HVDC (high-voltage DC), and energy storage, e.g., batteries and pumped hydro.^[5]

Conclusion: Conventional nuclear energy cannot possibly be the answer to the climate crisis. A case can certainly be made for unconventional nuclear energy, but non-nuclear renewable energy sources like solar and wind, combined with the smart grid and the VPP concept, are likely to be the superior choice.

Addendum: Thanks to @WhatTheFlux (see comment below) for pointing out that if seawater extraction of uranium could be scaled up, then conventional nuclear power would become a renewable energy source.