where is the surprise?

Rather than explain why the cost analysis is wrong, attack the person who put it together supports fission power exactly how?

At some point its looking like Iran is going to be attacked over the issue of 'you have a nuclear plant and are not making a bomb/no you are making a bomb'.   Because nuclear fission power is allowed, 'cover' exists for bomb-making.  

Wonder what assigns the external cost of bombing a nation's fission plants?   Or having a military 'fighting terror over there so they don't attack fission plants here'? Or having a civilization using wind/PV and forgoing fission due to the high cost?

Yes he is a long-time opponent of nuclear energy. In the '70s as a scientist and as an environmentalist he laid out a "soft path" to energy policy based on increasing efficiency. At that time he suggested that the economics of nuclear power was an illusion and many utilities would have profited handsomely had they followed his advice rather than sink billions into investments that never paid off. (of course, utilities that subsequently purchased those same assets for pennies on the dollar and shifted disposal costs and risk premiums to US taxpayers have done well)

Recently he published a work - Winning the Oil End Game -  funded by the US Dept of Defense. In this work he details a technology roadmap to substantially reduce our "oil addiction".

Clearly at this time any stance vis-a-vis fossil fuels, nuclear power and energy could be described as political, economic or ecological. Does any such label add to or detract from the merits of an alternative approach to a reliance on a highly-centralized, capital-intensive business-as-usual demand-driven model for generating, delivering and consuming energy?