[pfdietz]

That's a story from 2008. The case for nuclear had not so completely fallen apart at that point. But since then PV has become an order of magnitude less expensive, and the "nuclear renaissance" has so spectacularly flamed out in the US.

Moore's claim that replacement of fossil fuels would require nuclear is at this point objectively wrong. I mean, it was unproven then and disproven now.

[robertlagrant]

It would be good to hear some evidence of why you think it's disproven.

And the topic of this thread is what lobbying has prevented said nuclear renaissance. You can't use the result of lobbying to prove that the assumptions behind the lobbying were correct.

[pfdietz]

Renewables and storage are cheap enough that a 100% renewably powered world economy is possible. And they would be cheaper than nuclear in most places.

The objections to this now are mostly "but it hasn't been done yet", which is the last ditch stand of the passive-aggressive denialist (and hypocrite, if that person says nuclear could do it.)

[robertlagrant]

> Renewables and storage are cheap enough that a 100% renewably powered world economy is possible. And they would be cheaper than nuclear in most places.

How do you know this? Other than for new designs, nuclear/coal/gas costs and performance are well understood in because we've done them for 50+ years.

> The objections to this now are mostly "but it hasn't been done yet", which is the last ditch stand of the passive-aggressive denialist (and hypocrite, if that person says nuclear could do it.)

This just seems to be ad hominem stuff. Claiming something that hasn't been done as fact is an obvious problem. Attacking the people who say it rather than what's said is, well. Ad hominem, as I say.