Well, I am not sure but from my point of view, this article misses quite a few arguments against nuclear power. Some may be excusable but not mentioning waste s

Well, I am not sure but from my point of view, this article misses quite a few arguments against nuclear power. Some may be excusable but not mentioning waste storage (or even regeneration, though I want to see it before I believe it) at all. It does not tell about the destruction cost of nuclear plants (that will never be covered by waste regeneration). It does not talk about terrorist attacks on nuclear plants or just someone stealing radioactiv material to make a dirty bomb. I understand that some arguments against nuclear power are just nonsense but there are some quite tricky ones, picking some that you are able to refute is rediculous. Edit: and a broken dam in a (at the time) third world country that kills >80% of 170.000 people later through famine and epidemics is nothing that translates to the first world. I agree that hydro-electric power has some big down-sides (like mentioned terrorist attacks) but still you should give things in context. Fukushima happening in Angola would have been a different story than in Japan.