So nuclear advocates insist that we renewable energy boosters give them an exact time/cost estimate to compare to their nuclear dreams?

I am not claiming to know exactly what the eventual result of a 20 year move to renewable smart grid technology, conservation using geo heat exchange heating/cooling, biogas distributed generation grid backup (and organic agriculture), renewable electric powered mass transit, and plugin hybrids will look like.  

With the human/social/political factor playing a major part, prediction is problematic, and really unecessary anyway.  The proper incentives will allow the whole scenario to play itself out given a leveling of the energy playing field.

But I do know it is a much better alternative than nuclear power in it's present state.  on every level, financial, environmental, GHG, economic revival, whatever metric you want to examine.

If nuclear power could make some huge brealthrough over the next 10 years fine, but that would have to be demonstrated and tested before rolling it out.  putting us 10 years down the GHG climate disaster path.  What if it doesn't pan out?  No solution?  that is unacceptable.

We have all the technologies needed for this energy revolution now, we must get on with it.  Energy storage grid backup can be taken care of with distributed biogas power generation.

The nuclear industry/government revolving door leadership has had decades to fix the problems with nuclear energy, but they haven't even aknowledged there are any.  So how can these problems be fixed by these denialists?

You apparently see no problem with nuclear power either.  So there it is.  A fine mess nuclear power has gotten itself into.  You need to convince wall street, the public, and politicians.  That will take more wool pulling than we have seen so far on the part of nuclear advocates.