Still need batteries big enough to power global shipping etc. Nuclear can do that, even though building reactors takes time

What exactly is the big gap? Are you going to mention baseload, a concept that's been obsolete for a decade? The baseload power demand, according to the according to its actual definition, is zero on many grids. Solar and wind produce energy Joule-for-Joule far cheaper than fission. And we have any number of ways of storing that cheap energy. Renewables are the cheapest form of baseload power. It's not 2010 anymore.

Plus, if we're talking national security, we've seen from the Ukraine conflict that every nuclear plant is a huge geopolitical liability. There have been many near misses and scares relating to Ukraine's fission plants. Many have had to be shut down due to the risk of being struck. And hell, Iran's plants are actively being targeted by US and Israeli air strikes. In a big war, your enemy can create an instant chernobyl in your backyard if they want. You can design a reactor to be intrinsically safe, but that doesn't help if someone drops a ballistic missile on top of it. And yes, if you did this to a nuclear power like the US or Russia, it might provoke a retaliatory strike with actual nuclear bombs. But there are dozens of countries that have nuclear reactors but no nuclear weapons. For them, having nuclear power plants is a huge strategic liability. Far better to have innumerable solar panels and wind turbines scattered across the countryside than one big vulnerable reactor, an Achilles heel that an enemy can target to knock your whole power grid offline.

Well what will you use for power generation before we have enough renewable energy? You say it yourself: "can" be reliant. Yes but we are not, so what's the way forward? Nuclear til we have enough renewables, or you know, my question : shall we burn coal up til then?

And nuclear energy is less expensive than coal, oil and gas IMO.

Nah, if you assume 6-12h of storage needed it's close to break even. I'd say if prices of batteries get halved again, it's solved

The new twingo is the exact same price in constant euros as the first gen twingo that came out in 1993.

Besides that, prices of EVs are not more expensive over 5 or 10 years despite the shown price because you run them at a much much cheaper price : electricity is often cheaper than gas, the only real cost you would have to pay is tires and shock absorbers, breaks pads and disks get used a lot less because of regen, no belts or chains, no spark plugs, no oil change, no exhaust, no turbo, no belts driven AC, no starter motor, no alternators etc... All those things that cost a lot in mechanic repairs for most cars.

We have bought the smallest car that would satisfy all our needs (a small station wagon), and we use it as necessary.

My commute is outrageous BTW, 50+50km, at highway speed and with airco, that might already be a stretch for the Dacia Spring. I do it mostly by train though.

I would have thought that:

"Reducing car use is better than just replacing them. Cars cover a lot of difficult corner cases, but let's offer good alternatives for the day to day life"

should be a pretty uncontroversial take, and yet I'm here discussing with people that want to use cars everyday, and cover the exceptions with the alternatives.

Easy there, we do ~15000 km/year, but ~4000 of those are on long trips. That's "a significant fraction". I didn't say I spend all day every day in the car.

There are many logistical reasons why we still need one car, but we are actually also able to walk, bike, and use transit.

And I expect I spend more time on a train that you do. But it's not always the most practical option.

Crossing the alps on a train means too many changes, with trains from different companies, and my bored kids (depends on the origin and destination, but it's true in my case). Even using the plane, with all the associated changes and buffer times, usually takes 6 or 7 hours.

Holidays in the mountains also gets a hell of a lot harder without a car. That's true in general, but it's doubly so in the places where I like to go (less crowded secondary destinations). Public transport requires density, and the last thing I want in the mountains is high density.

Edit:

As I wrote in another message, I would have thought that:

"Reducing car use is better than just replacing them. Cars cover a lot of difficult corner cases, but let's offer good alternatives for the day to day life"

should be a pretty uncontroversial take, and yet I'm here discussing with people that want to use cars everyday, and cover the exceptions with the alternatives.