>> "http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear
> My original point, however, was slightly different - that
> nuclear is better than coal, not that nuclear is better
> than "soft energy."
Which just goes to show that you didn't read the paper. Or even the abstract, which I posted. The point of the paper is that nuclear should be *forgotten* because not only is it bad for all the reasons that we've known for two generations, it isn't even "better than coal" ...
> I do not have enough background knowledge to decide
> between these claims.
And yet you're happy to claim that "nuclear is better than coal" and also that "the paper I have not read could not possibly be more right than my subtle understanding of everything" ...
/jordan