People are more afraid of a nuclear accident than they are of climate change though, at least in the US. It would take some effort to convince people that nuclear is safe, even though nuclear plants have been operating safely for decades around the world, and that it can be done quickly.
True, but with both parties on board and a strategic interest from the intel community, the MSM propaganda machine will fall in line and fix that. The key is modularity, which has the potential to shorten the approval process. The new gen 4 nuclear plants don't melt down when they fail, they just go out.
It's not the best answer for vehicles as well, since it would still require EVs with all their battery related issues.
You're right, it solves nothing on that front. I predict that California will pass a law saying that all EVs must be plugged into the grid if not being actively driven so that they can be used as buffer storage.
Hydrogen could work. Infrastructure is again an issue. Maybe lots of little gen 4 nuke plants making either hydrogen or electricity as demand varies. Dunno.I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if gas is considered the best option for vehicles 20-30 years from now. Batteries have big flaws and most people are completely unaware. Just doesn't seem like it's sustainable without a huge tech break through. The biggest unknown, IMO, is hydrogen. A vehicle where water is the only byproduct seems great, but I'm sure there is some issue with 'mining' hydrogen, or too much water created, or some geopolitical downside.