A nuclear proponent makes the case for nuclear power.

[FBaggins]

16. Interesting that you accuse others of ad hominem attacks.

You're the one that can't reply to straightforward objections and instead resort to "pathetic".

"analysis" that projects nuclear as a significant part of the solution to climate change does exactly what the OP does - it skips over the part where the need for nuclear is established

Nonsense. It "skips over" it in exactly the same way that renewables proposals do. IOW... it doesn't. It isn't a "need for nuclear" or a "need for renewables". The two needs are always the same:

1 - Provide for the power needs of society
2 - Deal with climate change

All proposals for substantial new clean generation capacity start off with those two assumptions.

Resorting to ad hominem and baseless attacks on the journals and the authors

I have done neither. The cited article is, in fact, published in an almost-unheard-of publication with little relevance to the topic at hand (apart from the aspect that deals with battery storage)... and the two schools involved are not exactly at the forefront of energy research or analysis. They aren't MIT or even Stanford.

That's not ad-hominem. It correctly points out that their opinion hardly represents some groundbreaking proof that your position has been correct all along. I can see why you would like it to be something significant... but it simply isn't. Sorry.