Nothing in the way of man made disasters comes within an order of magnitude of the disaster that was and is Chernobyl. If not for Chernobyl the Soviet Union might still exist. Of course global warming is no walk in the park and other forms of energy have their problems too.

Nuclear reactors are a huge risk. Jihadists, private militias, suicide commandos, and random saboteurs are probably planning attacks on nuclear facilities this instant. Biker dude, the nuclear power industry doesn't need any more spokespersons or lobbyists.

Even the movers-and-shakers are all shook up this time?

So do we ponder a little longer and debate and reach another 'consensus' in a compromise of diplomatic 'corporationality'(made up word,eh)

 ...for wise men know, the big boom and the big bucks stop there not here with the people? There's where our fate is tied; bought out for the Big Guys, yup.

All that can be achieved is compromise, compromise, into another resolution which will be no viable solution...

So I suppose all anyone can do is wait; ponder a little longer and debate, until the statue-warrior in the public square is wearing that inevitable square of white across his face; a face mask...who knows and thanks for the space. Have good day.

You don't hear much on why all of the Japanese plants were located right on the ocean as opposed to up on the hill, I guess proximity to water is the obvious answer, they'd have to pump water then.  But in 20/20 hindsight... it seems really stupid to have them all like sitting ducks in front of the Tsunami, on a spot where four fault lines intersect. Shouldn't there have been nice parks by the water instead?  Reminds me of Superior city planning. Never keep all your ducks in one basket. Hope for best, plan for the worst.

We know nuclear reactors are unsafe because 1) they are the only industrial operations in the world that are required to produce evacuation plans prior to start-up; and 2) not even the largest insurance companies on earth will sell the owners/operators a policy. Governments have to enact their own limited liability  statutes -- the U.S. has the Price Anderson Act -- to partly cover the potential costs of a disaster.

According to James Howard Knustler, the Earth can only support 1 billion people without the use of fossil fuels. Namely, natural gas, coal and oil. Nuclear energy is only possible by the cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.  This means that 7 out of 8 of us are screwed.

And MTV. True that.

If the isotopes don't kill us, the aliens will. If the aliens don't kill us, the meteors will. If the meteors don't kill us, the earthquakes will. If the earthquakes don't kill us, mercury will. If mercury doesn't kill us, the Muslims will. If the Muslims don't kill us, the CIA will. If you don't kill us, somebody will.

Don't worry about overpopulation. The earth will self correct.

Of course we're all gonna die from something, but I think this discussion has been partly about how willing we are to speed the demise of future generations and other species.

Dave S.,

I guess I'm trying to posit that life is fatal, no matter what (as you said), and that arguing whether or not nuclear vs. fossil energy is "more" fatal is silly. They both suck...bad. 

And yet, the average American lifespan is lengthening. Meanwhile, average lifespan in most "Third World" countries is declining. 

In conclusion, everything is relative. Everything.

A few more reasons why nuclear power is a bust:

WIND POWER INSTALLATION SPRINTS, NUCLEAR STUMBLES 
9,922 megawatts of wind power generation was installed in the U.S. in 2009 breaking all previous wind production records. The one-year installation record is equivalent to the building of six large nuclear reactors, or three times the 2-unit South Texas Project that produces 2,700 MW. The new wind energy megawatts were built in one/tenth of the time it takes to build merely one new reactor -— normally 10 years. The U.S. wind industry entered 2011 with over 5,600 MW of electric power under construction, far above the same time last year, and wind is now cost-competitive with natural gas for new electric generation, and will be buoyed by a 1-year extension of the 1603 Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy.
--American Wind Power Association, 2010 Annual Report

GE CHARIMAN LOOKS AHEAD, SLAMS NUCLEAR'S PROSPECTS
 "If you were a utility CEO and looked at your world today, you would just do gas and wind. You would say (they are) easier to site, digestible today and I don't have to bet my company on any of this stuff. You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming," said Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of one of the world's top reactor engineering firms. About its chances to growing on government handouts, the Chairman said, "The nuclear industry is here because government supported it in the United States. This notion that government is not a catalyst in this industry has no basis in fact."
-— Wall Street Journal, Sept. 25, 2010, & London Financial Times, Nov. 18, 2007

SOLAR POWER CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR
 "Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear" reactors.
-— "Solar and Nuclear Costs - The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy," Blackburn & Cunningham, Duke University, July 2010

F.E.R.C. CHAIR SAYS WE DON'T NEED NEW REACTORS
No new nuclear plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, said April 22, 2009. "We may not need any, ever," he told reporters, saying new coal plants and nuclear reactors are "too expensive." Renewable energy systems "like wind, solar and biomass would be able to provide enough energy to meet base load capacity and future demands." He charged that "Until [new reactors] get to some reasonable cost, I don't think anybody's going to take [nuclear] seriously," noting that the U.S. can reduce energy usage by 50 percent.
—- Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2009; & New York Times, April 22, 2009

U.S. COMMISSION SAYS NO TO NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES
The Federal Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has told the United States that it can help stop the spread of nuclear weapons by "... discouraging, to the extent possible, the use of financial incentives in the promotion of civil nuclear power."
-— "The Clock is Ticking," CPWMDPT, Oct. 21, 2009 (http://preventwmd.com/static/docs/report/WMDRpt10-20Final.pdf)

Attention PDD, we have a new troll! His name is spooman!

Really nice data and graphics comparing coal, oil and nuclear.  

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html