I appreciate this thoughtful post. In the spirit of dialogue, may I suggest that in providing energy supply we do not have a binary choice. It is not either fossil fuels or nuclear. All the brilliant minds that have developed and refined nuclear energy should apply their skills to at least two more options: clean energy (solar/wind/hydro) and highly efficient technology that uses less energy.

Of course, there is no truly 'clean' energy, if we look at the cost (environmentally) of manufacture and disposal of energy components. Ideally, we will learn to live less wastefully and use less energy, overall.

Many of us who oppose nuclear do not have an instinctive aversion to the word 'nuclear'. We have an aversion to the unavoidable and virtually immortal radioactive waste inherent in nuclear energy production. We have an aversion to the admittedly remote but still present danger of catastrophic failure. And that failure can arise from events not intrinsic to the plant's operation. For example, NY's Indian Point nuclear reactor was built very near to the Ramapo Fault line. We all know about Fukushima. And then there's the ongoing danger of deliberate sabotage by bad actors.

We don't have to choose between dirty fossil fuel and implicitly dangerous (yes, dangerous) nuclear. We can use the vast resources of industry and government to come up with a saner option...energy efficient technology and renewable energy.

Hope you don't mind my long comment. This is not a simple discussion and it is one to which I have given some thought. I look forward to reading more of your always interesting, and informative, posts :)