Most regular readers no doubt appreciate that anyone persuaded by Mr. Bates is unlikely to recognize a reasoned argument when they see one, ergo attempts to counter him with reason are likely wasted effort. I would therefore simply suggest that he compare the lifetime carbon footprint of each generation type by tons of carbon equivalent per megawatt produced, including that of the fuels they require. This would still hide the benefits of distributed generation, but would go a long way toward clarity on the subject.
He does bring up a misconception that many reasonable people might harbor. It is a shame that his hobby apparently does not include reviewing high school chemistry since the science behind climate change is both fairly simple and has been well understood for over a century. It is the actual forecast, especially in the range of decades, that is monstrously complicated. This is perhaps why deniers restrict their attention to the forecast and not the science.
I encourage people who assumed that understanding the science would be beyond them to read one of the excellent books on the available for the layman. I suggest the following:
“Global warming: Understanding the Forecast,” by David Archer.
“The Discovery of Global Warming,” by Spencer R. Weart.
James Maiewski
Deerfield