Well Michael, since your argument against nuclear power seems to be not so much that "Nuclear power is bad/wrong because of X" so much as "Oh what a shame that we can't have nuclear power becuase of the inevitability of complicating external factor Y", I guess all I can say to that is that I hope your forecast of inevitable disaster is wrong, and presumably you also hope the same thing.

I just "hope" people will not waste too much of our remaining energy clinging to BAU and placing their faith in silver bullet solutions but will focus on securing our agriculture, education, core health provision base (contraceptives/antibiotics etc.), democratic societal structure and so on so that the future is not too brutal.

Michael, if we are forced by unavoidable circumstance into the sort of low energy future you envision, it will be brutal in the extreme as billions fight a hopeless battle to avoid starvation. If you would avoid this bleak and brutal nihilistic future, you had best get on board with pushing nuclear power as hard and as far and as fast as possible.

Craig, you are labouring under the illusion that you have a choice to go nuclear. What I am saying is that the choice does not actually exist. You say that I should "get onboard" the nuclear bandwagon but, if it is actually an impossible dream, then doing so would only make our situation worse. We no longer have time to screw around deluding ourselves that we have a high-energy route out of the fix we have got ourselves into. Yes, the future is bleak but will be even more terrifying if we waste more time and money/energy on infeasible solutions.

Michael, what you are espousing here is the energy policy equivalent of a doomsday cult. The rather absolutist language in which you frame your comments ties in with this. Your views on this matter seem virtually identical to those of one Michael Stasse, who is fond of claiming that his organic farm will be his survival insurance against a coming apocolypse of the kind you are prophesising.