There has been no convincing refutation of that estimate. If foreseeable demand from China and the third world is to be met without massive dependence on fossil fuels, the nuclear component will have to be substantial. A comparable dependence on scientific progress in agriculture is unavoidable if their people are to be even adequately fed. Your comparison with tax policy is interesting, since it points out that our dilemma is government by consent of the governed in an age when problems are far incomparably more complex than those faced by Gladstone. The genius of our democracy lies in its representative character.
Most people have a view on taxation, welfare and what they expect from the state.
They do not have the competence to decide whether or not we budget for more research on thermal reactors or the application of the human genome but expect their governments to get these matters right. They do not expect to be governed by scientists, but they do expect their leaders to sustain and consult the best science. A study for the European Commission in 1995 showed that, on conservative assumptions, offshore wind power in Europe has the potential to generate more than the entire current European electricity demand. I find your attitude towards voters deeply patronising. Yet these conferences often come to radically different conclusions from the experts determining policy.