The increased intensity of energy usage has been a critical factor in the successful development of the world. Energy for industrialization, farming, light, fresh plentiful inexpensive food, clean water, temperature control, computers, transportation, medical equipment, etc, have all contributed to the successful development of the developed world. The world currently consumes ~565 EJ (1 exajoule = 174 million barrels of oil.)
However, and unfortunately, there are still billions of people on the earth, primarily in undeveloped parts of the world, that do not have access to cheap abundant energy and are still living with limited food, temperature control, access to medical care, transportation etc.
It is estimated that the world will need 1.6-2.8 times more energy than currently produced to provide adequate energy supply for the developed world to attain the standard of living of the developed world.
With this clear need for significant more energy for the world the questions becomes one of what type of energy should be used.
There is a current trend towards claiming that renewable, primarily wind and solar, energy is the answer based on the claim that these energy sources are clean and have reached the cost of fossil fuels.
However, what is ignored in this position, ignoring any discussion regarding their cleanness, is their hidden cost. For both wind and solar there is a significant additional cost required because there are extended periods when the wind doesn't blow, or blows to hard, and when the sun doesn't shine. This means that when you add electrical generating capacity based on solar or wind, you have to build and operate a completely additional redundant system to cover the time that renewables aren't produce. Whether these are fossil fuel, nuclear, or energy storage, they are costly and required.
The question seems to be what energy source might be best. Based on economics, if you believe that fossil fuels have a significant externality, then nuclear fuel would be the most cost effective solution and specifically the Small Modular Reactors (SMR) recently developed that greatly improve the already safety of nuclear power.
And for those concerned about the storage of nuclear power waste there are two pragmatic solutions. First is to just store long term the small amount of waste. A typical large nuclear power plant might produce a cubic yard of solid nuclear waste. Second, and even better, would be to utilize high temperature nuclear reactors to further burn/utilize the spent fuel from SMRs to generate more electricity, more fuel and reduce the remaining waste to a tiny fraction, ~6 inch cube.
