You can, but then you need to build heaps more renewables than you would with conservation, which even ignoring the extra money it costs means it takes much longer to get us entirely renewable.

And since most conservation consists simply of getting rid of pointless waste - lit-up offices at night, houses warmed when nobody's in them, SUVs with one person in them idling in traffic, plastic wishbones and the like - I don't think conservation need cause great suffering.

So perhaps we could rephrase it as,

""choose one of the following:-
(a) renewables with heavy energy conservation,
(b) nuclear with no energy conservation,
(c) heaps and heaps of renewables at much great cost than (a) or (b) so you can have the privilege of pointless waste"

When it comes to nuclear I think it fair to present it to a voting public impartially so they can choose; when it comes to waste I see no reason to present things impartially.