Your blog seems interesting -will have a closer look.

I agree with you that governments should invest more in renewables. However though I do believe all the energy sources are necessary to take up today’s global challenges such as climate change and security of energy supply, I would like to remind you a few facts.

Wind and solar require 30 times as much land as nuclear to generate the same amount of power (source: The outlook for nuclear energy in the US, J Brodman).

A 1188 MW reactor (like Sizewell B in the UK) produces as much electricity as 2000 wind turbines, taking into account the load factor (measure of the output of the plant compared to the maximum output it could produce: 80% for nuclear, 30% for wind)of the respective energy sources
Source: Cambridge University physicist, David Mackay
Regarding the waste that we will leave to “the future generations” as you put it:
Nuclear generates around 30% of the EU’s electricity but produces only about 0.05% of the amount of the EU’s power production waste. Well, you may say, yes but it is NUCLEAR waste. That makes a hell of a difference! Well, there is a difference between low, intermediate and high level waste. It is an important detail because short-lived or low-intermediate waste (protective shoe covers and clothing, cleaning materials like rags and mops) accounts for 90% of the total amount of waste and is not dangerous to handle (anyway not more dangerous than chemical waste that last forever). The level of radioactivity of this waste decreases with time, losing 50% of its radioactivity every 30 years; after less than 300 years 90% will have decreased below the level of naturally-occurring radioactivity. It can be stored in surface or near surface. Long-lived or high-level waste consisting in spent fuel from nuclear power plants and research reactors accounts for only 10% of total radioactive waste, but must be stored safely for over 500 000.
Technical solutions for the final storage of high-level waste exist. There is broad consensus in Europe that deep geological disposal is the best applicable technical solution. Countries like Finland and Sweden are already about to implement this solution.
Last but not least, I am not so sure about the fact that wind mills is granted more public opinion credit than nuclear power plants. Many people are somehow reluctant to see huge metal sticks flourish in their backyards. Well, actually most people are quite reluctant to see anything they haven’t planted themselves grow in their backyard. That’s called the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) syndrome and I dread it is applicable to any industrial infrastructure that may spoil the view out of people’s window, unless of course they have an interest in it.

Great media success anyway!! I’m very interested in communications and I’ve created a blog on how to communications on controversial issues such as nuclear power: www.communicatom.org.