Ah yes, the usual passive aggressive approach of dismissing contrary ideas that have not been fully confirmed with 100% certainty. And yet you guys never apply this to nuclear.
They're not trying to model a hypothetical technology. They're using hypothetical technological estimates as the input for their model of how much carbon would be emitted.
Of course they're trying to model a hypothetical technology, "affordable nuclear". Large cost reductions are handwaved on the basis of "less regulation" and "experience curves". Never mind there's little or no basis for believing in any of that.
