“And no, we don’t need or want new nuclear”
The chief economist of the IEA says differently:
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/12/iea-chief-economist-says-nuclear-vital-to-climate-objective.html

Why should we trust the antinuclear lobby? Why should we disregard the IEA?

Clack et al have one fair criticism, that Jacobson’s 2015 paper on the USA relies for gap filling on an implausible, and surely very expensive, massive retrofitting of extra turbines to existing hydro dams to allow them to be run in burst mode. Imagine doubling the turbines at Itaipu. The 2017 paper (worldwide) shifts to CSP, which is much more realistic in the light of Crescent Dunes and Copiapó, despatchable CSP plants with large amounts of hot salt storage using proven technology at a reasonable cost.

The debate is interesting, but not immediate, and it’s a shame it turned so sour. Clack concedes we can get to 80% renewable energy fairly easily, Jacobson says 85%. (That far ahead, energy and electricity are much the same thing). The remaining 15% can be supplied easily and cheaply with gas, which is not renewable. So the question is how, when we reach 80% renewable, at earliest in a decade in major economies, to replace this gas at least cost. There are half-a-dozen candidates being investigated, and relative costs are very uncertain.

And no, we don’t need or want new nuclear, and at this point nuclear advocacy is a distraction from far more important things. Jacobson was clearly correct to rule nuclear out as a serious option. The suspension of construction at the Sumner plant in North Carolina confirms the death foretold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claque