Looking at the last several thousand years of history, where is there any evidence of a civilization capable of managing such dangerous advanced technology?  Looking at the past several hundred years, and not ignoring the environmental catstrophe which is now our home planet, within what perspective of current society would managing such dangerous technology make any kind of universal sense.

When these questions can be answered satisfactorily without resorting to a completely controlled top-down society, only then can we begin to discuss the pluses and minus on the technology side.

From another angle, what's the point.  I for one have already decided, based upon the best evidence at hand, the only future which makes sense to me includes visions of happy children playing in a society powered by the source of life itself, the sun.  Measured against that vision, anything else smacks of the same blindness which has brought us to our current situation.

We are simply not evolved enough to manage anything other than the gentle power of the sun as it reaches us, for example, causing the temperature differences which bring us the wind.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

 Hello Andre, thanks for blogging, and giving us a chance to have our little say.
  I too believe nuclear energy to be regressive, and beneficial to very few, compared to the negative characterial change necessary for societies to police the risks inherent in the technology.
  France is just one country, and one of the most advanced and responsible in Europe.
  Your job is to ensure clean, safe energy at the best price to as many europeans as possible, by directing our taxes intelligently into the proper channels to respect our commitments to Kyoto, and as much as possible to exceed them.
  What kind of example are we setting of moral coherence when we sanction Iran for wanting nuclear energy, when we could be modelling much saner alternatives?
  Nuclear energy is a horribly expensive wrong tree, to be barking up right now.
  One look at Naples should tell you how well nuclear energy is going to be managed in Italy. Recently the Italian government snuck in incinerators as a renewable resource. This does not do Europe proud.
  Be careful what you think you want, because you might get it!
  Why are you pushing nuclear with such enthusiasm, that could be going into teaching us about negawatts and reducing consumption by intelligent retrofitting of houses with proper insulation, rolling out MUCH more incentive for wind and solar?
  The corporations who run the nuclear and much else in the energy industries have already shown us over and over how allergic they are to truth and transparency. They are already stinking rich also.
  You would be much better off stimulating the less subsidised sectors of the economy, like builders, roofers and electricians, you know the 'little people' good governance is supposed to represent, rather than the usual brigade.
  There are a lot of us waking up right now, and although there's a lot you're doing right, we are educating ourselves. Please do not waste precious public funds on any more boondoggles with such potentially tragic consequences, no matter how nobly or cleverly justified by clever media campaigns, ie greenwashing.
  No offence intended, but if you're going to run ethanol in your Saab, please push for it not to be made from food crops, or likewise your efforts to bring us into better energy balance remain token symbols, and not what we need for visionary guidance and leadership.

A citizen of the EU.

in the dim hope he might wander over here...

my partner's dad was a nuclear engineer in dusseldorf back in the seventies. he died in his 30's from thymus gland cancer.

she has often told me of his stories about how shoddily the safety protocols were followed, and that's in Germany, where they really usually do sweat the details.

Crazy Horse tells it like it is, natch,  downthread.

I am no scientist, but no matter how relatively uneducated i am scientifically, it seems like fallout, like acid rain, does not only land on those who profited from its use.

i feel to keep silent is to be complicit, and we owe something to future generations that's a lot better than our leaders are pulling for now.

i am only one voice, and not a very articulate one at that.

De Anander has the most completely human summation of this dilemna, imo, and really the gifts to speak about it in the manner it deserves. these little pixel-droppings are all i've got...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

How about "fewer people"?

There is no advantage to any energy policy that accepts the axiom that More Is Better. For example, suppose that nuclear energy didn't have the problems that it has, and was too cheap to meter, etc. Then what is accomplished by building more of it? Nothing but further extension of an ultimately unsupportable population size.

The ONLY long term solution to the sustainability problem is the ultimate reduction of the global population to a sustainable level, and there are two choices about how to get there. 1.) Voluntarily. 2.) One or more of The Four Horsemen (three, really) of the Apocalypse.

All political history indicates that we will choose option 2.