1. As a nuclear advocate who has always strongly supported RE, despite claims by some (looking at you @alannogee), I applaud the spirit of this thread. But the "why do so many nuclear advocates crap on RE" question is a bit credulous.
2. RE advocacy, from its beginnings in late 60's, was explicitly anti-nuclear. Amory Lovins "Soft Energy Path" was foundational document for virtually all green energy plans that have followed and was explicitly anti-nuclear.
3. Pretty much entire green NGO community has explicitly endorsed 100% RE for decades. By contrast, I know of few if any nuclear advocates who demand 100% nuclear.
4. I recognize that many RE advocates just want more RE, without reference to nuclear or 100%. But you can't take that in isolation from the broader frame of reference that has defined RE advocacy for decades.
5. "Crapping" on RE by most nuclear advocates has entailed little more than simply suggesting that we are unlikely to get to 80 - 100%. This, in the eyes of many RE advocates has been interpreted as being tantamount to being anti-RE.
6. So here is hoping that pragmatists on both sides of this divide can bury this ancient feud and recognize that we will likely need every low C tech we have, or at least that the energy future is uncertain enough that we would be unwise at this point to take any off the table.
7. For a longer take on the history of the ancient feud and our persistent failure to predict energy futures, see: foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-…
