What I'm talking about is the foolishness of investing in energy system designs that don't confront basic technological weaknesses: Fukushima.

Or, what about the fact that we have--America, Europe, China, everywhere--built distribution grids that cannot withstand Solar events that are KNOWN to occur. And that when such an event occurs, huge populations will lose access to electricity for months or years. That means: no water, no transportation, no food, no communication, no heat, no nothing. Which means millions of people in perfectly civilized countries will die. This is a KNOWN possibility, although one can argue about the probabilities. And the result will swamp any concern about whether the energy usage will grow by x% or x.1% per year for the next century.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120308-solar-flare-storm-sun-space-weather-science-a urora/

What if some rogue country decides to explode an atomic bomb in a major port? You could "solve" Italy's energy supply problems overnight by simply wiping out the national economy. Where is the protection against this?
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/10/ff_radioactivecargo/all/1

The problem is that we have political discussions at a high level, ignoring the technical risks that show up at the detail level, and then ignore the protestations of the technical experts who warn that the plans are not sound. The basic assumptions, e.g. "there will not be a tsunami higher than x" are not adequately evaluated or accounted for.

It's a matter of multiplying a small probability by a disastrous consequence, not liking the answer, and agreeing to ignore that factor...without further discussion.