Someone commented on the French nuclear power stations.
A friend of mine was at the 1956 International Energy Authority
conference in Vienna.
At that conference the Russians described their power station
reactors. The same type as Chernobyl.

One of the conference delegates pointed out to the Russians that there
was a possible problem with the design in that it could fail and boil
the cooling water, due to energy being released from the carbon
moderators in certain circumstances.
The Russians dismissed the suggestion.

This fault was exactly what happened at Chernobyl.
My friend was supplied with the detailed technical report.

To me that means while technical problems can always occur good
engineering review will reduce risk to very low levels as the French
have demonstrated.

As is so often the case (lamentably) in such debates where there are quite polarised views and no reliable way of "proving" the case to either side, the "science" becomes irrelevant.
What DOES become clear is that as a community we can become sensitised to the greatest problem of our time and simply move to deal with it ..... whether led by governments or not !
Surely most of us have become aware that we cannot continue as we do to consume the finite resources of our home planet. And we seem to have the nous to realise that utilising so called "Renewable" energy sources presents as a best longterm solution .....
SO Why don't we just get on with it ...... and do that ?
We would need to cope with the backlash from vested interests, and the stranglehold they have on governments - and so THAT becomes the REAL challenge!
Marvellous isn't it how these things move about and morph into something entirely different !!

KenL
I think there is a kind of collective superego at work when issues such as this come along. Indeed I suspect that for a cohort of "dark" greens it becomes the death-drive. People have after all been weaned on doomsday scenarios, from nuclear winters, to millennial angst, to armageddon. Guilt and self-loathing are part of western life, and this is a morbid bias that should be factored in to popular support. In this case though, that might be a good thing, as we might actually get to deal with GW before it deals with us.

Of course there's doubt over the details of GW, but there's broad scientific consensus apropos the phenomenon.
It's interesting that the sceptics in this forum are the usual conservatives, the same ones, I suspect, who have no trouble putting their faith God, the economy and their own hubris.

Interesting website, malrob.

Interesting because all the embedded "links to GW info sites" only point to what are commonly referred to as anti-global warming sites or so called 'denialist' blogs, e.g.

Anthony Watts blog
ICECAP
World Climate Report
Bob Tisdale Data Analysis
Tom Nelson blog
Climate Change Happ/Wolk
Climate Depot
Climate Science - Roger Pielke
Climate Research News
Jennifer Marohasy
CO2 Science
Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre
Gore Lied Blog
Unbearable OmniClimate
The Air Vent
Minnesotans For GW
Heliogenic Climate Change
Climate 4 You
CO2 Sceptics
Lucia's Blackboard
Climate Change Fraud
Climate Skeptic
Junk Science GW
NZ Climate Science Coalition
Climate Sanity
C3 Headlines
National Post Deniers Series
Honest Debate
Roy Spencer
Questioning Climate
Prometheus - RogerPielke Jr
John McLean GW Info
John Daly Climate Info
AGW Heretic Blog
Global Warming Hoax
Science & Public Policy (The Lord Christopher Monckton)
Michael Asher (Dailytech) blog
US Senate EPW Report
Lucy Skywalker
Niche Modeling
Gore's Falsehoods
Heartland Institute
Climate Resistance
Paul Macrae - False Alarm
Coleman's Corner (KUSI)
Theodor Landscheidt
Global Warming Quiz
Skeptic GW Summary
Global Cooling
OISM - Petition and Paper

I think it's good for people to seek answers to questions that trouble them.

I also think a real 'sceptic' should seek answers from all sources - not just those that support their unqualified opinions.

To be fair, AppInSys have linked to some research/data sites (although it bothers me that they have left out some others, e.g. Argo.)

I honestly don't understand why people like the author of this article bother.
A target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 isn't socialism by stealth.
It's apathy by ennui.

DRW,

Yours is the most sensible post so far ... but I'd add greemies and environmentalists to the list of vested interests strangling our governments.

I agree lets just move onto alternative fuels and stop all this crap about emissions costs.

Simple for the industralists, while costly in the short term, mostly would easily adapt and survive ... but what about the greemies and environmentalists? They'll still be beating the same wornout old drum way down the track.