One way to look at it is from a risk balance perspective. Let's say that with increased nuclear use we would have a Chernobyl every 10 years. So between now and

One way to look at it is from a risk balance perspective. Let's say that with increased nuclear use we would have a Chernobyl every 10 years. So between now and 2200 we would have 20 such disasters. Reading about the Chernobyl disaster and multiplying by 20 still results in orders of magnitude less damage both to humans and the environment than the projections of what will happen if we continue on our present course. In addition, taking a realistic view, we will not be able to control climate change at this point just from a reduction in emissions. We will likely need to remove atmospheric carbon which will likely be very energy intensive. Having the extra power that nuclear brings to the table would be useful in this scenario.