However we need to start taxing Big Oil/Gas for the energy from fossil fuels based on THE REAL COSTS, including military costs, climate change costs, health care costs, etc ...

Otherwise, nukes cannot compete, at least not for the time being (probably not until 'global peak' on these resources occurs). And nukes need a long ramp-up period.

But absolutely, we'd be fools to not be keeping existing plants open and vigorously working on technology to make newer, safer ones, that produce far less toxic waste.

If its true that nuclear power isn't feasible without large subsidies then no. If the cost of safely storing the waste makes nuclear power unfeasible, then no.

My understanding is that there are outstanding permits to buid nuclear power plants and the holders of those permits are no acting on them.

Disregarding all of the health and safety issues (which are enormous and will last for eons), nuclear energy is so heavily subsidized it could not survive in a market economy. In addition the Price Anderson Act limits liability in the event of a nuclear catastrophe, so forget about any compensation for loss of life home or health.

I've seen some good documentaries on nukes that are not as damaging to our world as the TRADITIONAL nukes we all know.

The traditional nuclear power we know is an offspring of weapons technology. Its development went hand-in-hand with the development of nukes to end the Cold War by making it a HOT war.

I believe there MAY be better options out there. If we can stop making it about dual-purpose nukes we may find a sustainable technology that doesn't kill us all. We may not. I don't know. But it's worth investigation.

but as the video points out, it is not realistic to assume those technologies will
be there to help us in the next 10 to 12 years.

are no nukes. We have a perfectly good FUSION REACTOR a short distance away (only 8 light minutes). We should take full advantage of that one. Fission reactors are junk. There is no place to put the highly radioactive waste from them safely and securely.
Why can't we take advantage of the sun, and use solar, wind, tidal, and hydro power? We also need to concentrate more on small scale projects, for individual homes, rather than on large scale projects. Perhaps both, but we need to not overlook the small scale projects.

... many of us now enjoy.

Wind turbines and solar panels are mere feel-good greenwashing of the existing fossil fuel economy.

Every wind turbine or solar panel installed represents a greater long term commitment to a greater capacity of fossil fueled "backup" power.

That's why the powerful fossil fuel industry in places like Texas and Denmark have determined wind turbines are not really a threat to their business, simply because the sun isn't shining high in the sky and the wind is not blowing most of the time.

A purely solar, wind, and other "green" energy driven economy would look nothing like today's high energy industrial economy.

If we really want to quit fossil fuels, then we simply have to quit fossil fuels and let the pieces fall where they may. Pass laws that ban new fossil fuel development and then shut down the entire fossil fuel industry in some fixed time span, say twenty years.

That means no new nimble gas plants to support the grid when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. That means crashing the existing world economy.

I suspect quite a few green energy advocates would embrace nuclear power if they truly had to live without fossil fuels. For now, aside from those few who have fully embraced neo-Luddite, near Amish, sorts of lifestyles, most anti-nuclear activists are just pretending they could live without fossil fuels and without nuclear power.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190405/fight-over-wind-power-rises-up-in-texas


The Texas Public Policy Foundation, with annual revenue approaching $20 million, launched a barnstorming effort over the past year and recently has produced videos to criticize the renewable energy industry. This legislative session, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings, the foundation has employed more than 20 of its staffers as lobbyists, paying them as much as $395,000, to target renewable energy subsidies, among a range of bills that align with the group’s small government focus.

The initiative comes as wind energy has transformed over the last few decades from a boutique alternative energy source to a full-blown, big-business competitor to fossil fuels. At stake is the lucrative and volatile fuels market, especially for electrical power generation.
--
The Charles G. Koch Foundation, whose mission is “to advance social progress and well-being through the study and advancement of economic freedom,” contributed $1.9 million to the Texas Public Policy Foundation in 2017, according to IRS records filed by the Koch Foundation.

----

The largest planetary industrial projects today involve the extraction and distribution of "natural" gas.

There ain't nothing "natural" about gas.

Do you live a neo-Luddite quasi Amish lifestyle?

I don't. I'm a radical environmentalist hypocrite.

So much as I try to reduce my environmental footprint as an affluent U.S. American, my schemes are frequently frustrated.

Many years ago I was doing much better, had a much smaller environmental footprint, as an untreated mentally ill person living in the backyard garden shed of a crazy PTSD Viet Nam war vet. My footprint was even smaller as a mentally ill homeless person living in my broken car in a church parking lot and scavenging food from the trash.

Damn it, since those dark days, I like a dependable supply of electricity!