>I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. I get that. But it's worth going through the exercise

>I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. I get that. But it's worth going through the exercise how bad well-intentioned policies can be. It's worth to consider that anti-nuke activism is much worse than Conservative denialism. And if nuclear is too late now, then there's nothing we can do to replace carbon-based power. >I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable output like hydro, existing nuclear, and perhaps later tidal. Oh come on. Hydro is great if you can get it. Places that can get hydro, already get hydro. Most places can't get hydro. Ditto for geothermal. So what's the solution to replacing carbon emitting power sources? I want someone to explain that to me. Because all I hear is how solar and wind one day will be cheap and prices are falling every day - even though price is not the problem with solar and wind. Variability is. We need power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, and power requirements keep growing. People want electric cars and trains, those need huge amount of energy. I hear how batteries will save the day, except that we are not anywhere close to having battery technology capable of storing city-sized power requirements for a few minutes, much less hours or days. It may not even be physically possible to create a battery like that. So what's left? Coal and Gas - and this is exactly what EVERY nation is doing if they are not investing in (or divesting from) nuclear.