Is the Fukushima disaster a good thing for Nuclear?

Agree Paul, I'm sure it is good for nuclear, as it injects a little common sense in to design of reactors.

However, I think what slightly irritates me is that in all the commentary about the alternative - renewable energy - there is such misinformation being propounded. The Monbiot article is a classic case in point: people are saying there is only a small impact on the environment.

In global terms that may be true. But you can't ignore the fact that the reactors at Fukushima are now unusable and the materials therein will have to be disposed of *somehow*, eventually. Those noxious materials will continue to degrade over a period of up to thousands of years for high-level wastes. Granted, there appears to be low likelihood of impact in the environment, but the long term impact of dealing with nuclear waste is far more of an issue than any short term impact of radiation poisoning. And the more nuclear power there is, the more waste product we have to deal with.

It's not that I'm necessarily against nuclear: I agree it is, generally speaking, relatively stable. And yes, if you're not stupid enough to build a reactor on a fault line, it could be feasible as a supporter of power production. But frankly, there is more efficiency in combination renewables than most commentators realise, and renewable energy isn't just limited to solar panels and wind farms. Tidal energy and geothermic energy certainly would get my vote as power sources for Japan, for instance.

I think Fukushima has certainly - and rightly - raised suspicion about legitimacy of nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels, and that policy makers will inevitably seek greater protections against natural disaster oriented dangers for plants. But I'd also hope that those policy makers look beyond hyperbole on renewables and think about the cost of production of renewable energy as not a limiting factor, but rather as a contributor to the protection of future generations of the planet.