Entirely too civilized and restrained a conversation a the relative financial feasibility, sustainability, potential power generation, and inherent risks of nuclear vs renewable power. Both sides seem to be basing their views on the presumption of large-scale, revenue-generating power grids, which is not necessarily a 'given' in the future.

It is relatively good journalism. In the end, this journalist was simply observing a conversation between two people but, at least, these were two people who were very well-informed on the subject of nuclear power. Even still, they could not come to an agreement, which strikes me.

Two sides of an argument, one reasonable and one unreasonable, side-by-side as if they were equally reasonable, does not, in my opinion, make good journalism.

While the debate is extremely topical and definitely in need of debate, what we really need is experts in the fields. Yes, these two are extremely well informed and have great arguments for their sides, but in the end they are not experts. WE can talk about green energy till the cows come home, but I see no experts cited or statistics given in true confidence. We can also talk about the safety and sustainability of nuclear power, but we have no expert here to really give us a play by play of whats truly going on.

This is a good journalism as the story involves a moderator between two opposing views. Each correspondent also seem to know how to support their own arguments.