But I'll still give you a chance with this hypothetical question:
Consider a country investing heavily in solar and wind energy (always a good idea), but they need another energy source to insure power availability all day. They have no good geology for geothermal and hydro (the best renewable energy sources in my opinion) and have to import oil and natural gas at too high a price so they are left with two viable options for power generation: coal or nuclear. They ask you to decide this weighing all the benefits and risks to nature and health and leave you the room to choose the specific requirements of the power plant. Which would you choose? It may seem like choosing between two evils, but in real life things often are... This isn't about groups and politics but what you believe will be best, they are going to build a plant and you need to choose which one you believe will be best for the country and the world as a whole based on science (not just some people that can sleep better with either choice). I'm honestly interested in how you will answer this question and why. Coal or nuclear?
After this specific scenario I also wonder what your ideal power generating scenario would be.
I made some proper arguments why nuclear is still one of *many* viable options for power generation. Those arguments, as well as my opinion that the green movement causes more harm than good (as most hysteric overreactions), have not been met by you with any rebuttal. I suppose you think it's all fine to withold your well formed logical arguments and put me in my rightful place since I'm just a minion praying to the nuclear altar, but just suppose you're wrong? That would just make you a guy without arguments acting somewhat like a dick...