Sure if done by actual facts and economic or climate advantages. Using it as a basis to spin against hydro or wind - i.e. to prove they are unviable just makes

Sure if done by actual facts and economic or climate advantages. Using it as a basis to spin against hydro or wind - i.e. to prove they are unviable just makes a complete mockery of his claims. TL;DR He lies about it and makes shit up, repeatedly, in all his pieces. What's he afraid of? Nuclear should stand on the reality of the proposition, and indeed should have a place in any low carbon solution if done properly.