Joe Romm debates nuclear power

Joe Romm, whom I admire MIGHTILY, has a new article about how he claims nuclear power is too expensive to contribute greatly to a low-carbon energy future.

The question I'd like to pose directly to Joe is:  given the cost projections for the potential consequences of climate change, isn't it more expensive to not generate every possible Watt from non-carbon
sources?  And nuclear is the only proven high-yield energy source available right now.  Lots more solar would be great, even in the Sahara piped to Europe, but IS THAT GOING TO WORK?

In the comments, I noted that the oil countries are investing heavily in nuclear.  They've got the money to do it, and they can see the future when cheap fossil fuel energy won't be cheap for anybody, including them.  Developing countries are not going to back off their commitment to economic growth, and to do that rapidly (like the Western countries did during the Industrial Revolution) requires cheap energy. So with pressure on them from the developed nations to reduce the investment in carbon-based energy plants, and the fact that carbon is no longer as cheap as it used to be and is just going to get more expensive, both monetarily and climatically, the only real alternative that can keep economic growth going is nuclear.  And that's why another big growth place for nuclear is China. 

As I also noted, to really fight both the energy crunch and the climate catastrophes, developed Western nations should get on a war footing to implement the drastic energy conservation measures that are required now.  And I certainly don't see the collective will in Western economies to do that.  So the "low pain" alternative is nuclear.  Sad but true, unless energy efficiency gets on the fast track.