Samuelson's column shows need for nuclear

Robert Samuelson, writing in the Washington Post:

Fighting climate change requires more than soothing fantasies

Some excerpted pieces (underlining is mine):

"But I have doubted that, without major breakthroughs in energy technology, we can do much about warming. The addiction to fossil fuels will triumph."

"Actual choices are harder. For example, Bryce argues that only an expansion of nuclear power could replace significant volumes of fossil fuels. But greater reliance on nuclear poses its own dangers, including the disposal of atomic waste, operational accidents and vulnerability to terrorism."

"We know what’s needed: cheaper and safer nuclear power; better batteries and energy storage, boosting wind and solar by making more of their power usable; cost-effective carbon capture and storage — making coal more acceptable by burying its carbon dioxide in the ground."

Very simple wrap-up: he's right.