A debate about nuclear energy featuring George Monbiot and Malcolm Grimston against two fossil greens is viewable here.
I was pleased to see the fossil greens lose by a wide margin (63 to 9) and look completely clueless when asked about the increase in CO2 emissions expected from the irrational German decision to phase out nuclear power.
For further reference I note one point made by Malcolm Grimston highly interesting to me. That is, nuclear is much better than renewable energy for producing hydrogen, since it operates at higher temperatures.
That is probably open to debate when the alternative is concentrated solar power, which operates at rather high temperatures as well. But interesting anyway. As long as there is no world-wide grid of power lines connecting all the large-scale desert renewable projects, hydrogen in one form or another is the best form of transporting the energy.
Had I been on the pro-nuclear side, I would have not only asked as Mark Lynas did if Greenpeace is happy to see new CO2 emissions in Germany. I would have asked why they want to shut down nuclear before coal.
There is some common ground here. Even Greenpeace activists understand that there might be somewhat of a problem with climate, and that some kind of action is necessary to deal with it. Both sides want to displace coal. Let them oppose nuclear, as long as they oppose coal even more.