how could they become safer when they are the safest already today?

@Alexander Goeres: cause nuclear is magic, and magic is over logic

@Emmanuel Florac: ils nous promettent cela depuis les années 90 au moins, et on attend toujours de voir venir

Ils ont besoin d'une "technologie de transition" en attendant la Sainte Fusion, qui devrait venir d'ici 2050, ou un siècle plus tard tout au plus, et nous fournir la même énergie que le Soleil... Mais sans une distance de sécurité de 150 millions de kilomètres et sans la gratuité

Qu'ils finissent déjà leur EPR et qu'ils trouvent un moyen de gérer durablement les déchets, et on reparlera de la Next Gen Nuke Plant

En attendant, le nucléaire c'est des milliards investis en recherche et développement chaque année, pour une turbine à vapeur radioactive. Mais une turbine à vapeur svelte, dans le futur. Un jour. Probablement

@WeirdWolf** according to mustGoogle translate you wrote:

They have been promising this since the 90s at least, and we are still waiting to see it come

They need a “transition technology” while waiting for the Holy Fusion, which should come by 2050, or a century later at most, and provide us with the same energy as the Sun… But without a safe distance of 150 million kilometers and without free

They’re already finishing their EPR and finding a way to manage waste sustainably, and we’ll talk about the Next Gen Nuke Plant

In the meantime, nuclear power is billions invested in research and development each year, for a radioactive steam turbine. But a slim steam turbine in the future. One day. Probably

I am not sure I understand your point, but I dispute that nuclear is a “transition technology”.

It is a good technology that it behooves us to deploy right now and in scale, because without it we don't have any chance to hit 1.5 or even 2.0 degrees, and global warming will not wait for any other tech to mature.