You said it yourself, high gain and low risk. What exactly do you want? Something that is 100% safe and super-efficient? Well guess what, it doesn't exist. Will it exist in the future, NO because nothing is 100% safe. Right now, nuclear energy is our best bet, but people still think that a nuclear reactor will somehow turn them all into zombies. You say the "possible harm...is enormous." What exactly do you mean? If a reactor has a meltdown, do you know how far the radiation will leak? I think you'll be surprised by the answers if you do some research. By the way, how many Amercians are killed by coal powered plants every year? Research has shown that it may be around 30,000!! The long term effects of the pollution are devastating...

I didn't say that at all, actually.  I said that the gain is high but made no attempt to quantify the risk.  A low likelihood of incurring a low cost would be a low risk.  But whether a low likelihood of incurring a high cost is a low risk is subject to debate.  As you suggest, whether a meltdown constitutes a high cost is also susceptible to debate.

You, however, seem to consider the matter beyond debate as you portray opponents of nuclear power as caricatures fearing mushroom clouds and zombification.

The matter is not beyond debate, it's simply that most people against nuclear power give piss-poor arguments, especially since they know little about science, nuclear energy, safely protocols, etc. yet they feel that nuclear energy is far too dangerous to use. If you have good logical arguments, I would like to hear them, and please provide statistics. However your above statement

"whether a low likelihood of incurring a high cost is a low risk is subject to debate"

seems to imply that nuclear power incurs a high cost, and I claim it does not. Did you read the link I provided? How do you account for high cost? An average of 30,000 dead per year due to coal plants and an average of 0 dead per year due to radiation. Which one is the high cost really?

What I've always had to say is this: Nuclear power needs to be constructed, operated, and maintained with the necessary level of care; unfortunately, most people are too lazy to treat things with care, and assume that the other people beside are also completely lazy, and unable to treat things with care.

Also: Not a bad idea to construct nuclear power plants in remote regions, where you don't have to worry anything else important getting blown up nearby...I've always thought desert land was good for that. But, I guess, in all seriousness, we should probably save that land for solar farms. The question is, when ARE we going to get down to constructing large scale solar farms?

Whenever photovoltaic technology ceases to be a joke.