Dreeeaam, dream, dream, dream.
Good grief!

How badly polluted is Fukushima? Some spots might have 20 mSv / year
http://tinyurl.com/peuzkh5

But the Charles Sturt University Radiation Safety Committee says: "Dose rates greater than 50 mSv/yr arise from natural background levels in several parts of the world but do not cause any discernible harm to local populations."
http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/committees/radiation/radiation_life/how_much_ionising_radiation.htm

Not only this, but the environmental group The Breakthrough Institute has the following conclusions about Fukushima.

1. Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions
2. Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat
3. Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable
4. Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group
5. Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/five-surprising-public-health-facts-about-fukushima

Fear of radiation comes from Dr Helen Caldicott who does not work from peer-reviewed sources.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/interrogation-of-helen-caldicotts-responses/

But the most amazing statistics of all? Mark Lynas documents them for us. It may be that evacuating people from nuclear accidents is worse for them than letting people just stay there! First of all, there is the risk of evacuee related depression, basically becoming a refugee in their country. This can have health consequences, even suicide. Then there's the fact that nuclear power plants are often rural and the air is often far less polluted than a big city! Living in a polluted big city is probably more dangerous than living in either the Chernobyl or Fukushima evacuation zones!
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/08/how-dangerous-is-the-fukushima-exclusion-zone/#sthash.dI0gnJQC.dpuf

This is also confirmed by the fact that worldwide, coal and oil and gas kill far more people than increased cancer rates from nuclear disasters. Bottom line? Coal kills 3 million people a year, and so is about 2 Chernobyl's every day!
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/deaths-terawatt-hour-energy

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Want to kill fewer people? Go nuclear!
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/want-to-kill-fewer-people-go-nuclear-20130710-2pqbq.html

Max the problem you have not addressed is the fact that Japan shut down all its nuclear power for 4 years thus losing 30% of its total power supply. Wind power might be out for a few days in the worst case scenario but we can both forecast when this is likely to happen and make up the short fall.

It seems to me that the most common argument against renewable is the intermittent supply problem. This problem is entirely solvable and the answer is energy storage not just electrical storage as most people seem to assume.

The methods of energy storage can simply divided into heat, mechanical and chemical

Some examples are:-
Heat can be stored by a number of methods such as in high temperature salts used in solar thermal power stations essentially making solar thermal practical for base load power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant
Heat can also be stored in liquids and solids for later retrieval.

Mechanical
Hydro power is stored energy but it can be further enhanced by using spare power from wind or solar when available to pump the water back up again.
Fly wheels are used in some small to mid size applications to store power as in King Island.
Compressed air
http://energystorage.org/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes

Liquid phase transition that is compress a gas to the point it becomes a liquid and then release the pressure later to power a turbine.
The heat pump uses mechanical energy to move heat to and from a reservoir thus permitting seasonal storage of heat and cooling as required.

Chemical
The rechargeable electric battery while very suitable for those living off grid, is only recently being rolled out on a large scale.
http://www.aesenergystorage.com/2014/11/05/aes-help-sce-meet-local-power-reliability-20-year-power-purchase-agreement-energy-storage-california-new-facility-will-provide-100-mw-interconnected-storage-equivalent-200-mw/

The use of solar energy to create liquid fuels for example splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and possibly using atmospheric CO2 to make artificial hydrocarbons.
Bio-fuels E.G. growing wood as a fuel, as a case in point Australia burns huge areas of bush every year just to reduce the fire risk, why not harvest some of those areas for fuel to be used as further power backup.

Hi Warmair,
well I'm glad you've agreed that radiation isn't *that* big a deal! But James Hansen thinks storage for renewables is!

First, in Germany solar is 3 times more expensive than nuclear: and it doesn't run on a cold German winter night.
"An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute finds that the entire German solar sector produces less than half the power that Fukushima Daiichi – a single nuclear complex – generated before it was hit by the tsunami. To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/doing_the_math_comparing_germa.shtml

Secondly, to back up renewables seasonal fluctuations in northern countries like Germany could bankrupt any nation that tried it. You can *either* buy Tesla Powerpack batteries to back up *one week* of winter in Germany (at a hypothetical 30% penetration of wind and solar, and these wind and solar farms must still be bought), OR you can just buy safe modern nuclear-waste eating nukes that will do the whole job for 60 years. Again, *backup* a third of a renewable grid for just one week, or nuke the whole grid for 60 years! That’s the economics of renewable storage V nuclear.
Point 2 below
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/renewables/the-grid-will-not-be-disrupted

Third, in some places like Germany, Solar PV + STORAGE may not even be much of an energy source!
Nuclear, on the other hand, can have an ERoEI* of about 75 to 100 or more.
(* ERoEI = Energy Return on Energy Invested: or how much energy you actually get after all the energy to build it).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Robert wrote, "For the record do NOT think that the answer is "renewables" to keep our lifestyle going in the manner that we think we deserve.
I DO think that we are not going to be able to continue with our present lifestyle.
The planet will not allow it."

Watching to Q&A, Neil deGrasse Tyson reminds us that one asteroid holds more minerals than have ever been mined on earth, means we will not be limited by Earth's resource offering.

Cheap energy will allow us to repair damage do Earth. Why shouldn't growth continue? Civilization can only be improved by the availability of cheap energy. EROEI is critical, as well as a more reasonable approach to radiation. Renewables will have their place but cheap base-load is central to affordable sustainability. Nuclear is the only way forward. We can drive the entire global industrial/transport complex with nuclear delivering day and night to avoid CAGW and dislocation.

OK,you might say, I'm the dreamer now.

For those who still believe that Fukushima was “harmless” it might pay to take your head out of the sand and look about you.
Denial can cause blindness.

http://enenews.com/tv-believe-happened-again-san-francisco-coast-scientists-baffled-mysterious-whale-deaths-continue-officials-inexplicable-summer-trend-dolphins-wash-dead-beach-nearby-heartbreaking-hear-dying