isn't that awful that US nuclear plants have to go off the grid to be refuelled? This means they only operate at more than 90% of their theoretical capacity, as opposed to wind farms, which, what, operate all the time even when there is no wind? Florida Power and Light operates 4000 MW of theoretical wind capacity and gets 21% of it each year. I'm not against wind, but it also isn't baseload power as nuclear is.

If Lovins is correct, that nuclear is a no brainer non solution, why do so many scientists, as opposed to people who might be expected to be biased in favour such as nuclear manufacturers or builders, say we should take another look? Stephen Chu, Obama's appointee to head the DOE, co chaired the IAC panel that came up with "Lighting the Way" a report on energy for decision makers, to be taken as what the world's science academies recommended. He and that panel called on us to take another look: "the United Nations should commission as soon as possible a transparent and objective re-examination of the issues that surround nuclear power and their potential solutions. It is essential that the general public be informed about the outcome of this re-examination".