For all you 'Crazy' anti-nukers, this one is for you. We have company.

[daveMN]

14. Whoa.

I wish I had time to review all that right now. If nothing else, I try to keep an open mind. I'll try to get around to it soon. Still, for now, I stick by my position - we should at least maintain the current proportion of generation from nuclear, as concerns about safety are overblown. (What we learned from Fukushima, I guess, is that they shouldn't put the emergency backup generators in a place where they could be flooded by a tsunami. If that hadn't been the case, nothing probably would have happened.) The transition to renewables isn't going to happen in a day. If nuclear is "crowding out" renewables, then giant centralized fossil fuel plants must also be doing that to an even greater extent. It's more a question of public policy, and also of technology. Currently, renewables can't provide baseload power. It will take a massive infastructure investment to change that. An investment, which, by the way, will also cause GHG emissions. Whichever way you figure it, we are creating a carbon "debt" that future generations will have to "pay off." Continuing to use nuclear for now will reduce that amount of CO2 we put up there during this transition.