This is true but what is more shocking is that the powers-that-be in each of the major countries haven't been able to sit down and say: Nuclear option: Environ

This is true but what is more shocking is that the powers-that-be in each of the major countries haven't been able to sit down and say: Nuclear option: Environment cost, land cost, resource cost, availability of materials etc. Renewables option: Requirement for the correct geography, unbalanced grid, storage options, increase of energy efficiency etc. Then at least work out that currently in situations a, b and c, only Nuclear is viable, whereas in situations d, e and f, renewables make sense. In almost all cases, it will need to be a mix and I'm unsure that anywhere has so many renewables that have a massive problem. Australia struggled with too much solar but their grid is still alive so in many countries, we could probably scale renewables more quickly for some capacity. Nuclear is longer term and might be needed where you don't have Norway's water or Iceland's geothermal, great. Why does everyone have to be an extremist on these discussions?