You are familiar with Bjorn Lomborg aren't you? He does a lot of that type of analysis, and his are equally as valid. I doubt you'll be using any of his studies anytime soon, however, because like the one you've posted they are usually designed to create an impression rather than fully inform a wider analysis of a problem.
So the real research question only begins with whether nuclear power saved lives and we can agree on that part - it did.
But next part isn't addressed: what did we give up to save those lives? Put in econ terms, what were the opportunity costs?
Is there a study telling us what the world might have looked at had we continued down the path of renewables begun in the 70s?
What impact did the heavy investment in nuclear, with its massive losses, have on the progress of renewables? We already knew carbon was a serious problem, did the debacle with nuclear investment impact the public's appetite for and willingness to spend on a transition away from carbon?
That leads to the final question once those are answered, how many lives would have been saved between 1980-2100 if we had never made that economic mistake?
And you can craft the same kinds of questions about what would have happened if the roll out of nuclear had not been subject to such great economic failure. If it had gone better and we'd built 400 plants instead of 100, where would we be? Would we perhaps have hosted our own chernobyl-scale event on the outskirts of Chicago? Where would that have left us?
The point is, the Hansen analysis really doesn't tell us a great deal about what we should do today regarding the best solution for climate change.
= new reply since forum marked as read