The first argument (Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation) is hard to argue against. To my surprise even in China it takes rather long. And in countries

The first argument (Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation) is hard to argue against. To my surprise even in China it takes rather long. And in countries with a nuclear critical public is is a fantasy to think that going with "just the facts" for a year or two will sway enough opponents, and then go all-in with nuclear (as would be the case in an Ideal World). The Cost argument [$151 (112 to 189)/MWh vs $43 (29 to 56)/MWh / $41 (36 to 46)/MWh for wind / solar PV] is also convincing, assuming the numbers are correct. If it is really a factor of > 2 then this would even be enough to bridge shortfalls of renewable energy due to lack of wind or sun, i.e. building rather inefficient (40%?) long term thermal or battery storage. Weapons Proliferation Risk, Meltdown Risk, Mining Lung Cancer Risk, Waste Risk are tolerable when the alternative is a catastrophically warmer planet. The "Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution" point counts the time it takes for a nuclear plant to come online? So ideally going full nuclear would have started 10 years or so ago, but in the muddy real world this pure nuclear fantasy does not work. Time to bury it and stop wasting time and energy fighting for it, just get solar panels and build a wind farm already.