A lot of that money was spent on R&D. Tens of billions of [inflation-adjusted] dollars were spent on the Manhattan Project, but the net effect on fossil fuel usage was zero (outside of two cities in Japan).
If this is the author's key argument, he's just wrong, plain and simple. For context, I support investment in nuclear energy, precisely because it offers the fastest replacement for fossil fuels. But that doesn't mean I think you couldn't do it with solar and batteries — you absolutely could — but the technology needs time to mature.
>1. Security: Does an energy source enable a country to maintain its autonomy? Controlling access to critical minerals and natural resources to make affordable, reliable energy is a precondition for liberty and self-determination. Relying on energy imports or minerals from other countries puts a nation at risk.
It's painfully ironic to read a paean to nuclear power that leads with this as its highest priority! Sure, this is perfectly valid for nuclear energy in the United States, or in India, China, Russia, the UK, France, Pakistan -- you know the list. But the modal nation cannot produce fissile material and maintain its autonomy. It will be sanctioned or worse. Just ask Iran, South Africa or Libya.
>7. Land use: What are the energy source’s effects on wildlife, habitat, farmland, viewsheds, and coastlines? For example, a typical 1,000-megawatt US nuclear power plant needs little more than 1 square mile to operate. Solar farms need 75 times more land to produce the same amount of energy. Wind farms need 360 times more.
This is largely a red herring. Actual land use is driven by the regulation of land use, and any energy-related uses are a small fraction. If solar farms displace agricultural usage in the Southwest, that could actually be good for the environment by reducing irrigation! Also, wind can be trivially co-located with agriculture, while for solar this is difficult, so a simple area comparison is not apples-to-apples.