You can misrepresent, misinform and be as obnoxious as you like, but in the end the data speaks for itself.
Text from the EPA Clean Power Plan
...Like generation from new RE generating capacity, generation from new nuclear generating capacity can clearly replace fossil fuel-fired generation and thereby reduce CO2 emissions. However, there are also important differences between these types of low- or zero-CO2 generation. Investments in new nuclear capacity are very large capital-intensive investments that require substantial lead times. By comparison, investments in new RE generating capacity are individually smaller and require shorter lead times. Also, important recent trends evidenced in RE development, such as rapidly growing investment and rapidly decreasing costs, are not as clearly evidenced in nuclear generation. We view these factors as distinguishing the under-construction nuclear units from RE generating capacity, indicating that the new nuclear capacity is likely of higher cost and therefore less appropriate for inclusion in the BSER. Accordingly, as described in section V.A.3., the EPA is not finalizing increased generation from under-construction nuclear capacity as a component of the BSER.
The EPA is likewise not finalizing the proposal to include a component representing preserved existing nuclear generation in the BSER. On further consideration, we believe it is inappropriate to base the BSER on elements that will not reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs below current levels. Existing nuclear generation helps make existing CO2 emissions lower than they would otherwise be, but will not further lower CO2 emissions below current levels. Accordingly, as described in section V.A.3., the EPA is not finalizing preservation of generation from existing nuclear capacity as a component of the BSER.
Pgs 344 and 345 of Aug 3. 2015 prepublication release of CPP.
= new reply since forum marked as read