Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases or pollute. The entire amount of nuclear fuel used to date (including the nuclear submarine fuel)would only take one football stadium, filled 10 feet high, and every atom is contained. Compare that to the amount of ash and crap (SOx NOx and carbon monoxide, C02) coming from a coal plant's stack or furnace. Even with "clean coal technology" (an oximoronic name!) coal plants would STILL produce tons of ash, flue gases, mercury, and even more radioactivity releases (from radioactive Radon and other naturally occuring isotopes in the coal) than would EVER be allowed to be released by a nuclear power plant, even during a severe accident. Even the TMI accident released less fission product releases/contamination to the environment than the amount NORMALLY emitted from a COAL fired power plant in a week! If coal plants had to be licensed using the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's requirements for radioactive releases, EVERY COAL PLANT IN THE US would be shut down immediately. Compare the EIA coal plant flue gas emissions data with the NRC's regulations, at http://www.nrc.gov. Double standard, huh?

And HOW do you think the US will get to the "HYDROGEN ECONOMY" for replacing gasoline and diesel with hydrogen cars? Hydrogen from fossile fuels? NO. The only way to do it is with high temperature (helium gas-cooled) reactors! See http://nuclear.energy.gov/NHI/neNHI.html and the details about the gas reactor research: http://nuclear.inl.gov/gen4/vhtr.shtml.

The US Dept. of Energy is doing the basic R&D for these high temperature gas-cooled reactors with a "shoestring" budget, but the Japanese and Chinese have already built their new gas reactors (research/testing). The French and yes, even S. Africa are ahead of the U.S. program!!

The current US reactor designs only use about 3% of the total uranium fuel available in the fuel pellets. Recycling fuel (like France, G. Britain, Japan) would allow the US to not only use the uranium fuel more effectively, it would allow the US to burn the transuranic isotopes (Pu, Np, Am, etc.), produce more power, and significantly reduce the toxicity of the used fuel, and the space needed for permanent storage in a repository (Yucca Mountain). This recycling has allowed France to have 80% of its electricity to be produced by nuclear plants, with 1/3 of the fuel coming from recycled/reprocessed used fuel. This means they do not have to mine uranium ore. The French and British have recycled used nuclear fuel now for 30 years, and the French put all the fission products in high-tech glass logs to isolate the "nasty stuff" isotopes.

President Jimmy Carter said "no" to plutonium and fuel reprocessing, stating that the world would follow the US example. Did that work? Of course not. We have the technology to recycle used nuclear fuel without creating weapons proliferation problems already. So why not use it and collaborate with the French, British, Japanese, etc., under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (DOE's program to recycle fuel)?

Why is the U.S. public uninformed and so gun-ho on renewal energy? Why don't they know that NUCLEAR POWER is GREEN, no carbon emission, clean and safe energy?

Simple–stupid Democrats and "luddites" want you to pay taxes and waste it on their "pet projects" such as wind, geothermal, renewables, solar, which have been studied, implemented and failed for the past 30 years…Remember 1973-77 and the gas crisis?? These folks want you to believe that these pet technologies will be able to handle the increasing demand, and REPLACE coal and nuclear. They say there has been no US energy policy. Incorrect–look at the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Even President Clinton's energy plan had nuclear for the "climate change initiative".

Do you want out-of-touch Democrats, liberals, and the luddites taking your hard earned money and wasting it on what hasn't worked and will have to be substidized indefinitely? Or would you rather have clean, proven reliable nuclear power that has a cost LESS than oil, natural gas plants, and about equal to coal plants, INCLUDING the costs of construction, maintenance, fuel, spent fuel storage, waste repository fees, and dismantling?

Just look at the independent information and data at http://www.eia.doe.gov and the International Energy Agency: http://www.iea.org and Nuclear Energy Agency: http://www.oecdnea.org

The choice is clear –NUCLEAR

Great blog.