Well firstly, I think that public views about nuclear energy are largely negative due to incidents like Chernobyl and so on. In truth nuclear energy can be a real solution to the energy issue, especially seeing as how it can produce MASSIVE amounts of energy from just a little uranium, so it’s much more efficient than the other renewable sources out there. What we should be wary about is how well the government enforces safety regulations and so on to keep its people safe. Technology (to carry out the process and ensure safety) has improved drastically over the past few decades so as long as no one’s stingy or lazy to use it well, I think nuclear power could work wonders (unless, of course, we break out into a nuclear war)

At current demand and current costs, we have enough fuel for a century:http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/200…
If the price of uranium went up, people would look for more and the supply would probably go up. Or we might use thorium or breeder reactors.
Getting rid of the fuel is a money issue, not a ‘space’ one. 40-odd years of nuclear power have given us enough waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall 5 times over. That’s very little space!
We can provide a lot more electricity with renewables & if we push really hard, we might hit the government’s target of 32% renewable electricity by 2020.
Where does the rest come from? Carbon capture coal is being mooted; governments are pouring money into it.
Combined Heat & Power is being pushed in some areas (eg Woking & Devon). But it doesn’t make a huge difference to CO2 emissions like nuclear does, and it tends to use gas which has supply problems.
If we go all out for CHP, the CO2 savings would be about 33%. If we go for nuclear electricity + gas heating, you save over 60%. Nuclear electricity with electric heating it’s over 90% savings.
@lothringur – how do you suggest we provide all of our energy renewably? If we can’t provide all of it, then the choice for the rest is fossil fuel or nuclear. Nuclear is probably more expensive, but its life cycle kills fewer people, it’s more secure than gas, and its much lower CO2. Since I’m convinced we won’t provide all our energy renewably for decades, then anti-nuclear is currently pro-fossil fuel.http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_k…
@original question – all environmental and economic impacts should be considered. Nuclear has many advantages other than CO2, but its most obvious advantage is CO2. Since global warming is a huge problem, it justifies a huge response, which is why I concentrated my answer on it.

Pity the poor politicians who have to make decisions on subjects they know nothing about. They have to rely on the advice of scientists and engineers, some of whom are paid by the power industry. All sources of power have their upsides and downsides. What is needed is a person or group to evaluate all of them in an unbiased manner and send a white paper to Parliament. Let me know if you ever find that person.

I’m a big fan of renewable energy, but most have drawbacks as well, wind and sun can’t be relied on 100%. France has been cleaning it’s spent fuel and reusing it for decades, they create less than 10% of the waste with this method. After Chernobyl and 3 mile island people got scared and nuclear power fell out of favor. Many people aren’t aware of how many nuclear plants have been safely functioning for decades. I’m not opposed and never have been. We just need to do it right.

Some people still fall for the “too cheap to meter” myth put out by the nuclear industry in it’s early days. All costs factored in, it’s one of the most expensive forms of generating energy available.

WTF is “unfashionable” supposed to mean?
It works. It’s cheap. It’s safe. The techology is there NOW.
The only ones ‘obsessed’ are those opposed to its use.

Because conservative people tend to rely on solutions known to them and are afraid of new solutions.
@MTRstudent: Nope the supply of uranium has not been revised up despite a price increase 4 fold over:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_w0OEY2TK3HA/R3…
Nuclear supplies less than 10% of the worldwide electricity while available uranium at cost efficient prices would last for 75 years. If the US or China would go strongly nuclear the available uranium at reasonable prices would not even last for the technical, not even the economical lifetime of a reactor (60 and 40 years respectively).
With cost falling for renewables and cost increase for nuclear, it is over 95% likely that over the whole lifetime of a new nuclear reactor your would have net sub-optimal solution from an economic point of view.
I would be worried about people preaching about the “super-elasticity” of the demand. You might have noticed experience on oil, copper or rare earths…
Implementing projects such as the “desertec” would yield an electricity which would not be more expensive than nuclear.
—————–
@WHSgreen:
- France had no later than 2008 a major leak of radioactive substances
- France still operates nuclear plant with barely 50cm of concrete sole under the plant… 200 to 300 are needed in case of a major incident
- France’ champion of Nuclear tech Areva admitted it will not be able to provide a new nuclear power plant under 4 billion of USD
- France is a military nuclear power and has been able to hide part of the refinement budget in the military one (for a “clean cost, see my article on Turkey with 21ct per kWh)
- France has to export electricity at night and import peak and medium load from German coal power stations and Swiss hydro during daytime
- Last but not least: GO in front of the pipe connecting the uranium reprocessing plant in “La Hague”. You have one hour to live. Enjoy your safe nuclear.

I had a dream to start my business, nevertheless I didn’t have got enough amount of cash to do that. Thank heaven my fellow told to take the loan. Thus I received the sba loan and made real my old dream.