Robert, we are not that far apart. My argument is safety and long-term repercussions. We can argue details like the fossil fuel industry has been our 'friend.' We have fought one war after another over fossil fuels. In the 70's, the Hip-eyes were warning us about the environmental damage that was being caused by fossil fuel consumption. Since then, FF industry has gone on a tare. I'm not sold on nuclear. I almost was lulled into accepting the nuclear waste issue until Fukushima. Now I want 100% safety for nuclear power plants, that means absolutely no chance of a meltdown, no radiation leaks, no dependency on scarce water supplies or causing harm around nuclear power plants. And the waste issue must be completely non-existent. In other words, safety and the precautionary principle. Why? Because if we again become dependent on another energy source, we can't be replacing one evil for another. Imagine, as I said previously, thousands of nuclear plants running 24 hrs. a day all over the world. To me, right now, this is a nightmare. I don't really care how many FF's it puts out of business. It's just creating a whole new can of worms.
With solar, we have none of these problems. None. The only arguments I hear are the negative ones: we can't do it, not enough base load, etc. Huh? Put a few trillion dollars in front of American/world ingenuity and watch what happens. Solar simply makes sense. The only real pollution is in the manufacturing of the panels.
Finally, as I've said, I'm not optimistic. There are no signs that anything serious is being done to 1. slow down FF consumption. 2. Bring population growth under control 3. look to see if capitalism is a sustainalbe economic system. To be honest, it may take a second Civil War to save humanity. The fossil fuel industry is so crazed with profits that they will fight to keep the profits coming until they are behind bars. Just like the slave traders. Many of the fossil fuel big boys come from that background.