Debatable: The case for going nuclear (or not)

I would only add that if the US and Europe take the nuclear route to decarbonization, it would set an impossible example for the developing world to follow.  And without decarbonization by the developing world, getting global ghg emissions under control seems hopeless.

At the same time, seeking out a one-size-fits-all solution isn't what we should be pursuing. What works in one country with its geography/resources/politics/economy will not necessarily be the best suited for a separate country with its own unique profile. 

Where to start?

“Wind and solar kill coal and nuclear on costs, says latest Lazard report"

No one should care what an investment bank's "report" says when that bank has $billions invested in the products on which it's reporting. The inherent conflict-of-interest should be obvious.

Nuclear is, by far, the cheapest source of energy - when evaluated over a plant's potential lifetime of 80-100 years. If you want to make a quick buck, however, over and over again, keep investing in solar farms. They will never end reliance on fossil fuels, but they will impress your friends!

"Since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the construction time for most reactors in the United States has exceeded 10 years...”

More evidence that public perception, not safety, is the reason why nuclear plant construction has stalled in the U.S.

The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island was a Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) nearly identical to what occurred at three different reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi in 2011. Yet radioactive material wasn't spread over Philadelphia in 1979 because a vigilant and competent U.S. Atomic Energy Commission had required containment - a four-foot-thick shell of reinforced concrete around the reactors at TMI,  specifically designed to withstand the hydrogen explosions that blew reactor buildings wide open at Fukushima.

We do nuclear right - and TMI is the perfect example. It's one not of failure, but of triumph.

"The world should build whatever carbon-free options are fastest and (with all costs considered) cheapest."

Oh, really?

Then the world should build pedal-powered generators. We could quickly build 7 billion of them, one for every adult in the world, for less expense than any other source. They work at night and in any kind of weather, and are 100% safe and carbon-free!

The idiocy of this rationale should be obvious, too.

"I would only add that if the US and Europe take the nuclear route to decarbonization, it would set an impossible example for the developing world to follow. "

Please be sure to let members of the West Africa Power Pool know that nuclear energy is only for white, upscale countries, Mark. Seems they have other ideas:

"Africa is hungry for energy, and nuclear power could be part of the answer for an increasing number of countries,” says Mikhail Chudakov, deputy director general and head of the Department of Nuclear Energy at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an international organisation that promotes the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

"A third of the almost 30 countries currently considering nuclear power are in Africa. Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria and Sudan have already engaged with the IAEA to assess their readiness to embark on a nuclear programme. Algeria, Tunisia, Uganda and Zambia are also mulling the possibility of nuclear power.

'Energy is the backbone of any strong development,' says Nii Allotey, director of the Nuclear Power Institute at the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission. 'And where do we get energy from? We have hydro, thermal, fossil fuels, and we have local gas—but these are dwindling. They are limited; fossil fuels could run out by 2030. And, the prices are volatile.'

For Ghana, cost-effective, reliable electricity is the entry point to higher-value-added manufacturing and export-led growth. For example, the country’s reserves of bauxite—the ore used to produce aluminium—are an important source of income, but for now it is exported raw."

As usual I guess I disagree with many about finite Nuclear uranium. There is no way we would have enough to keep all the 103 Nuclear plants going. They ran out of space for the waste so they allowed more to each site . The cost of a Nuclear plant is so high they have never built even one without huge subsidies. Whike Solar PV is so low in cost everyone can put some right on their home. I own 2 large system and am working on 2 more. Wind and Geo Thermal are also low cost. Hydro is also a great renewable but cost more to build up front.