"either you imagine some new technowizard way of creating energy that's going to take the place of carbon based fuels"

Which is yours by the way? You claim that it is OBVIOUS that nuclear must be stopped. OK. What's your alternative, though? It would be interesting to hear.

You see, Monbiot is right in that, for some reason, nuclear must pass entirely different tests. We must invest in PV because maybe someday it will work enough (although we'd have to revisit quantum mechanics for it to reach our dreams, there seems to be a ceiling to it), but surely not invest in R&D for nuclear plants that could use today's waste, that would be bad.
We must talk about the environmental damage of nuclear but never of the damage of any alternative to it.

I'd love to get rid of nuclear. But I don't like unqualified fantasies. So, rather than say "stop nuclear", elaborate. Then we can discuss if we like the alternatives.

"i can't believe anyone can follow this line of logic, that nukes represent even a greener alternative to coal."

Really? In the short run? When the most pressing problem is climate change?
Not to mention the many, many deaths associated with coal. You don't even say that you disagree. You say you can't believe it. Wow.

Nuclear is not a long term solution. It is not a solution in very many countries at all. Maybe it is not even part of the short term solution anywhere, although I don't think that's quite the case.

Coal should be a strict no no.

By natural inclination, I'd be siding with people who'd like to get rid of nuclear (but also with people who'd like to get rid of a lot of other things, and maybe we can't get rid of all of them). However, many people on Eurotrib are quick to scream obfuscation, lies, propaganda ... about everything someone we don't agree with writes, yet in a heartbeat pass over convenient omissions by people we like.

I don't think this strengthens the argument.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi