> That's exactly the pro-nuclear point; it's far less harmful in aggregate, and held back by irrational fears. The problem here is that pointing out that irrat

> That's exactly the pro-nuclear point; it's far less harmful in aggregate, and held back by irrational fears. The problem here is that pointing out that irrational fears are irrational, doesn't change them. This is pretty basic human psychology, and it's not going to change in a decade. I really don't think there's time to change the publics view on nuclear (maybe if there was no Fukushima, but not now) in time to get a huge investment in nuclear going in time to save the planet. I mean, I'll defend nuclear any chance I get, I just don't think it's helping. Personally I think, if you consider the momentum of the technologies, it's clear that renewables seem to be on a path where they can actually replace nuclear at a lower cost. And that further investments in renewables might be more likely to accelerate renewables, than investments in nuclear is likely to give us an actual nuclear renaissance (although the ideal is increase investments in both). In terms of R&D we should absolutely put more in nuclear, but in terms of actual commercial projects, we should probably build all the renewable we can until it's not economical anymore.