I would say I'm in the pro-camp as well. Although I'm not that knowledgeable in some of the finer details of reactor technology, so it's hard to really cement myself on one side or the other. But yeah, the article mentioned the fact that nuclear energy has the least number of deaths per kilowatt of power. I find that one of the most surprising things about nuclear power. Nuclear power has even saved 1.8 million lives according to NASA. The startling lack of fatalities due to nuclear was what really made me re-think my stance. I remember reading a little article about Thorium reactors being some kind of miracle nuclear reactor. I should go back and read up on that a little bit. Do you happen to know anything about Thorium?
No, I can't say I know much about the Thorium fuel cycle, but I think there are, if not miracle technologies, at least good solutions out there, but we need to invest the money and expertise to find them, and the public needs to trust the scientists and engineers who have spent their life studying and designing these things. My personal belief is that as a species, we will either choke ourselves on fossil fuels, or we will adapt to a new energy economy which takes into account carbon in our ecosystem. I just don't think solar, wind, biomass, and hydroelectric are capable of sustaining the energy usage we're accustomed to. I don't know if you've seen the documentary Pandora's Promise, it felt like PR by the nuclear industry, but I do think they have a point with respect to overall environmental impact.