Prof James Lovelock, formulated the Gaia hypothesis in the 1960's and is one of the worlds best known environmentalists, before it became fashionable. He stated publicly several years ago that the only feasible way to deal with the potentially catastrophic consequences of global warming was for there to be a world wide shift to nuclear power from fossil fuels. He said, "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy." He is a member of "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy" along with Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace International), Stewart Brand (author of the Whole Earth Catalogue) and the late Bishop Hugh Montifiore (founder of Friends of the Earth) check out: www.ecolo.org
There are numerous solutions to the "problem" of dealing with nuclear waste which are well documented on the internet from newer generation reactors that burn much of their own waste ( eg traveling wave -TWR), MOX fuel burn of existing waste... as per burning old weapons grade stuff; to deep disposal - eg tectonic subduction. Much of the current impasse internationally is due to a failure of political will. Those that argue against NP because of the high cost of building the power stations; that they are uneconomic compared to coal, gas or HE etc per kw generated, ignore two things. The first is that the excess planning, red tape requirements in the West due to misapplied environmentalism, coal and other lobbyists, and nimbyism; has led to grossly inflated lead times and costings. The second is that so called alternative energy generation is even worse for cost per kw generated and is in the main not really viable without significant public subsidy.
There is really no prospect of solar, wind or tidal sources ever providing sufficient power even with massive subsidy to be a viable alternative to coal which provides 40% of world electricity generation - the reason - without efficient and massive energy storage- it cannot provide adequate baseload power unlike NP which is ideal for this. Alternative energy sources will be at best limited to niche requirements in the future and at the moment is mere "greenwashing." The US currently generates approx 20% of its electricity by NP and France approx 80%.
Anti NP advocates have an unrealistic idea as to how useful energy conservation can be; turning off lights etc, having better appliances, good insulation all good and laudable, customers save a few $s on their power bill; but it will barely knock a few % off a countries total annual energy use. Dropping world energy use by 30-40% is not going to happen short of a massive drop in total world population (a wish of some environmental catastrophists) and/or a return to pre-industrial lifestyles.
Robert Bryce in his book "Power Hungry" makes a persuasive argument for a transition from coal to natural gas in the short term so that NP can be ramped up over a longer period to ultimately replace most hydrocarbon use.
