I think (pace: the daily news here) that our main task is to unpick hidden assumptions, one of which is that the world just "is" this way.  I would like all costs assessed, and as many risks eliminated as possible.

In the chart you posted elsewhere, wind and hydro came out tops, there was no figure for geo-thermal.  Lignite was the most polluting, followed by coal.  Nuclear was the cleanest (on those criteria) "non-renewable", and it also beat photo-voltaic...I can't remember in which categories, but it had a lower total score.

Tony Blair is convinced that now we must build nuclear because anything else is...well...a death sentence to X number of human beings.  The assumption underlying this is...to do with industrial society, its construction, its needs, and its goals.

But yes.  We have the govts. we have, and if they feel building coal will make "green" voters happier than building nuclear powers stations...then they'll build nuclear and the nuclear lobby will be happy.

As an aside, it seems the green lobby must be growing rapidly for so much animus to be directed against it.  As DoDo mentions, the Greens were there at the beginning, arguing against all forms of ambient pollution.  So why they become the bogeyman...I dunno.  I guess they're getting stronger.  Thing is, they're anti-coal too (I think...correct me if I'm wrong.)

To state a position, I agree with what you wrote a while back, Jerome.

Do the following in the following order

Reduce consumption
Increase renewables
Increase nuclear
Increase coal/gas

I still believe (this future gazing, after all, and it worries me when the debate becomes like a law room tussle, with a victor and a loser...just the best solutions for all of us....stretching out beyond humans, please...), yes I still believe that a mix of the first two in that list are all we need.  And I mean across the planet.  Europe and the States are in the material and political position to make the move...or maybe they're not.  Certainly some american states are...and I expect them to take the renewables lead ("piddle power"!  As against huge gushes of manly piss power!)...ach...wrong debate...

The idea is that Africa, India, China, Mongolia, etc...  need nuclear to generate enough power to enjoy western lifestyles.  I argue that by offering them renewable energy and realising that where our reduced consumption and their increased consumption meet is not some definite agreed line but is undecided...

Double ach!

I would like to see the following...links if the info exists:

List of basic necessities that demand power (has an ideological edge, but surely we can agree on a basic list)

Specific number for energy needed to satisfy those basic needs (and remember: a power shower for every human may well be a basic need...the discussion...well...maybe we've had it...so give me the link and I can read and enjoy it!)

Then the question: which forms of energy can supply those needs and at the same time create fewest risks, greatest knock on opportunities, etc... for humans and beyond.

It may be that some areas will come out needing nuclear, others solar, others wind.

But the argument has to be NUCLEAR! with a capital shoutiness...and against coal, but somehow blaming the greens...or maybe I missed a load of stuff...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.