and the serious weaponisation potential of those long blades -- why, with a trebuchet you might be able to launch them all of a few hundred yards and knock down a house or two!  oughta be banned, potential Turrist threats all of 'em.

but this gets us into a territory where the debate is not supposed to stray, and that is the perverse appeal of nuclear power to some people (almost exclusively males in my experience) precisely because it is so exquisitely toxic and dangerous.  there is something so very, very Manly about keeping such a terrifying genie in a bottle;  like some guys just have to own a pitbull or a halfbred wolf, ya know, they couldn't be happy with a nice friendly golden retriever, because the thrill of dominating and "taming" it (not to mention being able to sic it on "enemies" or to render friends and family dependent for their safety on the Big Man's control of his dangerous dog) just wouldn't be the same...  sure I could be wrong, but there is so much gendering of the nuke debate that it's hard to ignore the obvious.

"renewables are for wimps" -- not so much because they haven't the potential to supply a decent and adequate energy consumption level, but could it be because they are just not big, shiny, complex and dangerous enough?  I mean, if any dangfool dirtfarmer can generate windpower out on the back forty, how much fun is that? (and how in the name of Friedman can we possibly trap him/her into a perpetual captive market and extort tribute, with this pesky low-risk decentralisable tech floating around and getting cheaper every year?)

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...