Richard, understood. But before we decide whether up front capital investments are prohibitive, that it's impossible to build nuclear plants faster, whether other events in history were really that harmful - we have to consider the only alternative (see my reply to Matt). It leaves us with only one choice.

Matt, these aren't my calculations, they're taken from an article in Forbes written by Roger Pielke (I apparently neglected to link to the original article in my post).

I'd urge you to read it for context. Though Pielke has not been a nuclear advocate in the past, from his background in mathematics he's apparently gained an appreciation for statistics. From the article:

"I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050."

Is it more practical to cover 300 sq/mi with 1,500 wind turbines every day for the next 31 years? Of course not - so we have the best shot at limiting the effects of climate change by building out nuclear. If not at the rate of one reactor/day, as quickly as humanly possible.

Everyone should consider what is, quite literally, the only alternative: dramatic changes to the Earth's climate which will last at least 100,000 years; the extinction of one-fourth of all species alive on Earth today (including Homo Sapiens) within the next ~500 years; the dieoff of ~90% of marine vertebrates in the next 80 years from ocean acidification - and the armed conflict which inevitably results from dwindling food supplies.

Anyone who thinks this dystopian hellscape couldn't possibly happen without nuclear energy doesn't know enough about climate change. Or nuclear energy.

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet

Michael, CO2 has already "wrecked the climate" for 15-27% of the species alive today on Earth, doomed to extinction by 2050. From 2004:

"Climate change over the past approximately 30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species and has been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15-37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be 'committed to extinction'."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8928870_Extinction_risk_from_climate_change

No religion involved, just the most accurate scientific models yet available.

Nuclear energy is the only way to prevent the worst effects of climate change, but fossil fuel interests and their best friends, renewables, are enriching a few at the expense of many by shutting nuclear plants down.