This article asks the wrong question. And answers an unrelated one. First off, the question subtly implies that nuclear power should be the last resort. That

This article asks the wrong question. And answers an unrelated one. First off, the question subtly implies that nuclear power should be the last resort. That's already setting the stage for a slanted discussion. The correct question is to ask whether we want nuclear power in preference to coal, oil, natural gas, and a little bit of solar and wind. As far as I can tell, the answer should be an emphatic YES---but the point isn't the answer, it's the loaded question. Second, the WSJ asks what's necessary to hit emissions targets. That's dumb. We ought to ask what's necessary to stop global warming. I don't know what are the current targets, probably something like cutting emissions in half by 2050. I think we can do that by switching more industrial processes from coal or oil to natural gas. But if the dire predictions of the IPCC are true, we're still going to die, only a little bit slower. To stop global warming, we need to get CO2 emissions to practically zero, and natural gas doesn't get us there. Neither do unreliables (sun, wind) combined with natural gas backup, nor the vain hope for a magic storage solution nobody knows yet. And finally, the stupid environmentalist hack proceeds to answer a different question. He tells us that nuclear power is expensive (still cheaper than wind and sun, though), but if indeed it was "Vital to Hitting CO2 Emissions Targets", we wouldn't care. We'd do it anyway, wouldn't we? But naturally, the ecotard doesn't even listen to the question and just rattles off his canned talking points...