I am all for technology also, spending the past seven years anakysing and researching the global energy problem voluntarily since realising the huge conflict of interest there is in profit, to me it looks like you might be still in the camp "oblivious to one's own conflict of interest", indicated by your fondness for nuclear, which has proven to be bad in so many ways.
Why would we bother with nuclear, if we could easily keep everything going, even bringing back a few long lost technical icons like concorde and space shuttle, just by going 100 percent solar hydrogen on a domestic and community basis, given also this will result in the economy necessarily moving to permanent solar indexed stimulus?
On whether or not nuclear is good or bad, consider the effect on temperature - we take some materials which were not temperature and we convert those to temperature. There is always a temperature cost of using nuclear.
Now look at solar, we take some energy that would be heat if neither we nor nature used it, and we convert that to things other than heat.
Isnt that a no brainer?
No amount of complex arguments (sales pitch) or profit can disguise that, it's plain and simple, it is monetisation of only destructive processes which are causing the damage, and the temperature rises seen.
Its possible to be pro technology whilst being anti nuclear.
In fact I would even say being pro nuclear is anti technology.
Isnt that how we lost those technical icons we once had?