We have more than enough people telling us how difficult things are and how we shouldn't try - yours is just another voice in that cacophony.
Had he even remotely implied that we shouldn't try, you'd have a point. But he didn't. The problem is that you, like so many others in the cacophony (emphasis on the phony), don't want to hear the facts as they run sharply counter to your dogma and thus you attack the messenger rather than dealing with the facts.
What we need are people who tell us how to make it work. What we need are people who tell us how to make it work. Nuclear plants might be necessary for a very long time, but they should be secondary to renewable sources.
He did tell you how to make it work, and more importantly why it has to work that way. You just gave us dogma that verges on being little more than unreasoning religious propaganda.
If we want to reduce carbon emissions, then we need to reduce or eliminate our reliance of carbon emitting power sources or at a minimum reduce or eliminate the worst offenders along with reducing total consumption. If we want to maintain a reasonably comfortable industrial lifestyle (even taking reductions into account), then we need a reliable and predictable supply of power. While renewable power sources can meet the first precondition, for the most of the industrialized world for the foreseeable future they cannot and will not meet the second. Period. This means a mix of nuclear, gas, and renewable sources is the only way forward. (Unless fusion becomes practical in which case it takes it's place in the mix.) If your worldview cannot deal with this harsh truth, then the problem is in your worldview not in reality.
