By that time CERN will have finished building the 100km long big brother of the LHC currently called the FCC. That is a very long timeline. I would hope that at that point battery and other storage technology will be so much better that nuclear just looks like even more of a complete joke in terms of both efficiency and practicability.

Whatever gets us to net-zero fastest. I do find it hard to believe that safe nuclear is the fastest way to get there, rather than scaling up solar and wind deployment.

But, yeah, per MWh from fuel extraction to the grid nuclear has been safer than coal, methane, or petroleum (products). As long as it can be that safe, I'm fine not just broadening deployment but also reducing the time needed for a single deployment.

After we get climate change primarily driven by CO2 "under control", we can decommission nuclear in favor of "zero-waste" generation, but nuclear waste is no where near the problem climate change is (and will be for a long time after we reach net-zero).

Solar and wind are still more sustainable than nuclear.

Weird that the UN makes such a statement, in most cases they try to remain neutral. The magic is in the word “could” more than triple. So it isn’t a prediction, it’s a wish/scenario or whatever. “Safer than any other option” - now that’s a tricky statement! As more countries start building nuclear reactors, one or two may get the bright idea to use the enriched uranium to create The Bomb, and the risk of a nuclear war is higher than ever, so no, nuclear reactors won’t make the world safer. Intriguingly, the majority of text in the AP article is about highlighting the countries where nuclear has led to tremendous conflict. And the uranium needs to be sourced from other countries, Russia comes to mind, so we create dependencies on countries we actually don’t want to do business with. I’m not convinced, sorry.

Nuclear! It's got what plants crave!