I see the Independent has lined up four Greens - Chris Smith, Stephen Tindale, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall, as converts to the cause of boiling water through splitting uranium atoms.
Would you rather have your electricity from coal, or from nuclear is like the old question, would you rather die by being boiled in a vat of sump oil, or die by lying in the road and have a spiked harrow dragged over you?
The correct response to both questions is "No thanks", or, for non idiot people, "Let us re-frame the question".
It is not a straight choice between coal and nuclear, both of which are as deadly as each other, each in its own special way. There is a third option - a Europe-wide grid of High Voltage Direct Current lines which can distribute renewable energy, from arrays of offshore windfarms the North, to assays of Concentrated Solar Power in the South.
Every day, the sun gives us about 200,000 times as much energy as we humans actually use. Our task is to stop dithering and get busy tapping into that energy. This process, combined with energy conservation (basically, insulation work) will provide a sufficient stimulus to power us out of the recession, provided Government stops fiddling around with bailouts for the investment bankers and grants for the banks motor car industry.
There are 10 strong arguments against using nuclear power to decarbonise our economy. The one that never gets mentioned is that nuclear power stations are not insured, unlike your average motor car. You'd think they would insure them, but the cost of insuring them would make it more expensive than renewables, so they don't.
I am sure that Chris, Mark, Chris and Stephen will be working on a little insurance package for the industry.
Here is my letter to firstname.lastname@example.org
While I respect the decision of Green activists who have come to the awesome decision that they must accept nuclear power, I hope they will use their 2p of influence to ensure that the new stations have the cost of insuring the power stations built in to the equation. At the moment, they are insured for less than 1% of the cost of a Chernobyl-type accident, which creates an uneven playing field, since sustainable forms of energy have to carry full insurance against accidents.