I tend to agree with Joseph NeiI and Ralph Andrews that nuclear energy can be safe and green at the same time. I, back in the 80's was kind of disappointed with nuclear and it's limitations. But since that time I have come to see that new technology has made nuclear energy more desirable and it's radiation dangers have been overblown and exaggerated.

To find out more facts on nuclear go to World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org.

To find out what really happened at Chernobyl, look up this site- Chernobyl Legacy: http://www.chernobyllegacy.com/index.php?cat=3&sub=2.

I'm surprised that Joseph did not mention the Thorium powered reactors that can safely burn plutonium: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/

And then there's the IV generation of reactors which include the High Temperature Gas Reactors. They require only a lower grade of enriched uranium and are more efficient then present water cooled reactors. They use helium for coolant so a water source for cooling is not required. Test have been run that shows they are virtually melt down proof. They would extend uranium supplies by a much longer factor then present III generation reactors.

If the greenies are really concerned about AGW and environmental degradation of the planet then they should advocate zero population growth as the human carbon footprint overshadows any offset from renewable's. I for one think that CO2's GW effect is negligible. It's land use and natural cycles that are the primary drivers. Natural events are being wrongly linked to global warming as it's been made more of a recent issue and there are more technology to track storms and other weather events. Climatic events are of such long duration that people die before the reach their cycle ends and they were never properly tracked since the real inception of climate issues. It's become more of a politico euphemism rather than a true scientific study. I read about it all the time.