Well that's the problem with your whole premise.
You do development before you build the plane.

The F-35 has turned into a white elephant specifically because of its backwards R&D/procurement process.

The F-35 is a compromise design.
Mostly it compromises its ability to loiter on the target, carry large amounts of munitions, and dogfight.
So as long as you don't want to do any of those things, the F-35 is better than older weapons.

Ha! The F-35's issues are not "teething problems," they are R&D problems.
The F-35 is a procurement disaster of such epic proportions that tomes will be written to warn future generations on what not to do.

Just to stay on topic, one of those tomes will talk about engine problems and why the military should source 2 different engine designs.
It will also mention that, because of the F-35's unprecedented budget overruns, the second design was canceled.

Ahead of time, with plenty of warning that it's going to happen. This is an operational impact and while not small is entirely mitigatable. Fair scenarios aren't because by definition stuff has failed and you can't know what will be working or available.

And of course if you dismantle the damn you can also reclaim the land rather quickly.

Need we mention the fishing and recreation industries that now take advantage of the new lakes? There isn't a 'positive' side to a nuclear accident...

No. They havent.

And saying "scientists" question it is an illegitimate statement. No one cares what a neurobiologist thinks of climate, and no one cares what a climatoligy thinks of nuerobiology. A non-expert is still a non-expert, even if he happens to be a scientist in some other field.

No. It doesn't.

here's your options:
--total freedom eventually leading to extinction
--some very mild controls that will improve health, boost the economy, create jobs, and possibly prevent extinction as well.

You presently have the freedom to be ignorant and stupid.
But that doesn't mean you should be or that it is desireable.
And I could build a decent case that that freedom (to be stupid) should be stricken because of hte burden you then place on everyone else.

the problem is nuclear has risks like nothing else we've ever done; see failure conditions above.

you do realize that humans didnt evolve to breathe CO2 at those levels, right? that when humans evolved CO2 levels were lower than today, let alone during the dinosaurs time? not to mention the fact that most plants alive today ALSO did not evolve to exist in such high CO2 levels? That such CO2 levels will cause dramatically higher temperatures and vastly different climatology, which will more than offset (ie: Kill the plants) any gains from higher CO2 levels? You also realize that CO2 is not "plant food" ? Plants use far more than just CO2? And plants are in general carbon nuetral, using and storing carbon while alive (in the form of growth), which then gets released back into the biosphere when they die?

Basic CO2 concentration guidelines:

Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW.

You do know that - below freezing - there's an inverse correlation between temperature and snowfall, don't you? And I really hope you know that it's very rare that temperatures rise above freezing in the vast majority of Antarctica, whether you add a couple degrees to the temperature or not, right? Or did you not know / ever consider that?

Just because you didn't realize something that should have been really bloody obvious to you doesn't mean it was a scientific prediction by your straw-man scientists.

AEI, for one. $10k for any paper that attacks the IPCC reports. There's other public offers out there, too. And I'm sure they're outnumbered 100 times over by not-so-public ones.

Nuclear isn't safer. It's only 'safer' until something goes wrong. Every reactor built was built 'to never fail' and yet we found ways to make them fail. New reactor designs may be 'more' resilient to our innate ability to screw something up, but that doesn't make it 'safer'.

Coal has massive 'operational' issues. It's failure scenarios are pretty mundane and localized.

Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.

Nukes are unfortunately the only realistic answer in the short (100ish or so years) to solve this problem. Believe me, I *hate* nuclear, but I'm willing to realize that it's the lesser of short term evils at this point. Considering the massive damage climate change is going to wreak...it's not a high bar to be 'better' than that...

But you'll need smaller solar panels because the lights use so much less energy.

Manufacturing costs are always less than fuel costs, both in simple cost and effects. One is a fixed one time thing, the other is ongoing.

If you want local solar to play any part in this future, it might help to restructure the power grid (at least in the USA).

The way things are currently setup, residential solar can only get pushed around the local grid.
This can be changed, but it's expensive. So obviously it's not popular.