Firstly, the anti nuclear pro renewable guy (Mark Z. Jacobson) probably should have gone into a lot more on the impact of the lag of installing nuclear power plants, this is a real threat, as opposed to the threat of terrorist activity. It's about the only thing that has any real hard hitting negative impact as far as I can see for nuclear approach.
Secondly the nuclear fella (Stewart Brand) seemed constrained artificially to try to solve the problem posed without extrapolating. Don't know why, but he's not pointing out that nuclear power provides a surplus opportunity.
This is the reason why I'm pro nuclear.
I believe that surplus energy provides the opportunity for good things to happen. If energy becomes cheap, then a lot of things become easier or possible. With cheap energy comes invention and innovation, which in turn are self propelling. I like things that are self propelling (see my work on taking advantage of innovation by random creation and critical selection) and with a world of cheap energy, creatives will have the opportunity to do more before the bills cause them to do a day job. Creatives are what keeps progress going, what keeps our next level of comfort approaching. Without surplus we're doomed to live a subtractive experience, cutting away at what is bad, not adding more good. That's not what I was brought up with, and it's worrying that my poor privileged brain might have to put up with it.