I am a conservationist! I hang out in and around these communities and I am disheartened to see my comrades being anti-science and often straight up luddites.

I am a conservationist! I hang out in and around these communities and I am disheartened to see my comrades being anti-science and often straight up luddites. Are you really trying to say that it will be cheaper by kwh to use solar / wind than nuclear? This is easily disprovable by simple googling. Here's a giant study that shows that by 2050 you could cover 1/3rd the US total energy requirements using JUST nuclear in 169 square miles. The same with solar would require 1500-4250 square miles. Do you think this is reasonable? What about the environmental impact and labor costs of decentralized generation and maintenance of literally thousands of miles of solar panel. Here's an MIT study on how we basically cant solve our immediate problems without a strong investment in nuclear: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-mit-energy-future-nuclear.html https://phys.org/news/2018-09-mit-energy-future-nuclear.html The "numbers" on this, as you ask for, are really well covered. We need to have a diverse energy portfolio of renewables: no one worth listening to will contradict this but the simple fact is that by all accounts you can't generate the required amount of energy in the next 10-20 years without nuclear. Nor should we!