[goodSteveramos]

As far as I can tell, anti-nuclear people either have a very shallow understanding of energy and can’t really have a conversation with you using well sourced numbers or they can but know the numbers show that nuclear is the only realistic choice and either way they just respond without numbers in very short and easy to repeat (and incorrect) arguments like “storage” and “bigger grids”.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists’ first choice would be to let people freeze to death. That being politically untenable their second choice is to continue using fossil fuels as the baseload and offset it as much as possible with renewables. They think nuclear is “an excuse” to continue the “business as usual” of affordable energy. They want energy to be unavailable and expensive. They oppose human progress and economic development as itself evil, even if the environmental impact is zero. Making energy expensive is their goal, not something they reluctantly accept. All the counter productive positions and bad arguments make perfect sense when you realize that they simply have a totally different goal from you.