Nuclear power as we have known it is not a candidate for saving the world from Global Warming. It is one of the Gee-Whiz technologies that lots of people glom onto because of the coolth factor, ignoring actual facts. This is equally true for existing enriched uranium reactors and for proposed thorium molten salt reactors or fusion or anything else we are looking into. These technologies have been 30 years away for decades, and appear likely to remain so.
tl;dr
Q: Can any form of nuclear power save us from Global Warming? Can any reach commercial deployment, and also be built in the quantities needed, before we can get to 100% renewables?
A: No.
We don't have 30 years to spare. We have to be Carbon Neutral in less than 30 years, not only in electricity, but also in transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing. We have to be well launched on going Carbon Negative, at a rate of tens of gigatons annually, with the goal of extracting more than a teraton of carbon from the atmosphere and oceans ASAP.
The nuclear industry’s COP 21 dilemma: 100% renewables is attainable
This article, the source of the graphic up top today, is mainly about debunking self-serving nuclear energy industry myths. That conveniently means that I don't have to do it for you.
The main point of the article was true four years ago, and is truer today, as costs for wind, solar, and especially batteries continue to tumble.
