Even if there are people out there who deny climate change, geopolitics like this ought to convince everyone that distributed renewable energy is the way forward.
Germany did more than any other country to realize the modern renewable-energy industry and it's failed its climate goals. The lesson should be that you have to try every tool in the toolbox, including nuclear energy.
Fukushima accident revealed the irrationality of the public. Fukushima-scale accident every decade somewhere in the world would be low cost to pay for replacing coal. It's only the drama behind the accident that makes people to lose their minds.
A few extra nuclear bombs going off per year in cities would soon change the desire for this I suspect.
According to the world health organization, the number of premature deaths caused by coal and Particulate Matter is on the order of literally millions per year.
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-...
This means that if we switch to nuclear and this caused us to have a chernobyl scale disaster every single year, that it would still be massively safer than coal.
And even if we use your ridiculous example of a nuke going off in a city every year, guess what, that's still safer than coal. (This is, of course, not how nuclear works)
So yes. Give me the bomb going off in a city every single single year. It would still kill less people than coal, according to the World Health Organization.
Yes, really. This is not an exaggeration.
I doubt we will see any reasonable economics for nuclear as long coal, oil and gas is allowed to be burned.
True, and that's why the carbon tax would have to be super-high as to make oil and gas financially un-viable. Banning burning fossil fuels is a better step, though, I agree.
Didn't California try equally hard with renewables as Germany? And failed equally hard.