That article is predicated from the start on the false premise that support for nuclear is only a climate denier thing and views the entire issue through a political lens. It's extraordinarily biased and for the most part cites opinion articles.
Where it cites studies, those studies show that nuclear is not viable without subsidies, but that misses the point. There are many examples of functionally necessary infrastructure that lose money, like the US postal system, because nothing else will do the job (in that case delivering unprofitable routes).
The argument for nuclear isn't that it's cheaper than solar, as your much vaunted article points out, it isn't. The argument is that it fills a gap in the grid mix that you can't fill with solar unless batteries get much better, much cheaper, very quickly.
The only renewable which compares to nuclear in terms of output and reliability is large scale hydro and we've just about tapped all the applicable sites in the US.
Perhaps I should've explained all of this in my initial reply but it's a lot of work, usually for no reward. A study can be absolutely valid and true while at the same time the argument it's being cited in support of has problems with its reasoning.
Where the author discusses baseload power for example, none of the citations are peer reviewed studies. Two of them are Forbes articles, one is from ABC. The only time the author addresses the actual thrust of the pro-nuclear argument, none of her citations are scientifically sound, they're just opinions that align with his.
Positioning nuclear as high emission *relative to renewables* which cannot fulfill the same function is another example of either poor reasoning or intentional dishonesty.
In a world where France didn't run primarily on nuclear power with a sterling safety record and decades of metrics demonstrating the benefits, I might find this guy more persuasive.
As it stands he just sounds like a partisan tribalist who interprets completely valid, rational points (like that proponents of eco-austerity claiming to care about the climate ought to support nuclear) as sinister trickery by the hated enemy tribe.
It's the mentality of a middle schooler. The Democratic party recently reversed itself on the issue of nuclear power after 48 years of opposing it.
The former leader of Greenpeace left in part because his mind was changed about nuclear, but the organization he headed remained staunchly against it.
People with relevant experience in these fields, and who have the power to make change, understand the issue better than you or that author do. They are pro-nuclear. Their minds have been changed. So, it doesn't matter if yours never is.
Nuclear will be forced on you, over your protestation, because contrary to what you believe, it is a good idea and necessary component of an emissions free grid.
That's the bad news. The good news is, I can satisfy your apparent ego driven craving for the submission of strangers by pretending to agree with you for the reasonable price of $50 per exchange, totaling not less than 1,000 words each. I accept Paypal, Venmo, or BTC.