Actually, what the majority of environmentalists want is:

Reduce, reuse, recycle
(You’ve heard of that, right?)

That would have meant burning less coal, burning less gas, burning less oil AND not having to build nuclear power stations.

As many people did not do the 3 Rs we got stuck in this mess where we have to choose between two evils. (I know that you followed the 3Rs though because you’re a socially conscious citizen who understands that good citizens have obligations as much as rights, right?)

The anti-nuclear lobby is a sub-set of the environmentalist movement and even their primary stance was to switch the money being used to subsidise nuclear power and/or nuclear energy research into alternative, safe, renewable sources of energy – perhaps if we had done that in the ’70s, we wouldn’t be up this creek with no paddle…

As for your “consuming electricity at levels 40-50% below the present level, which is unrealistic”… why is this unrealistic?
Western Europe does (and has arguably a better standard of living; they certainly live longer anyway).
The US managed to decrease energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% between 1990 and 2003…

Countries with low energies per unit of GDP do better economically in times of high energy prices (er… now?) and are thus able to compete more effectively in the global economy.

Countries currently “consuming electricity at levels 40-50% below ” the USA include Hong Kong*, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, UK, Austria…

* Yes, I know it’s not a country but it is for the intent of this comparision

True,almost!
I worked in the Nuclear power industry from the early 1960s to the late 1980s. I saw the industry change from 44 month engineering/construction schedules to build a plant to up to 15 years with projects that were cancelled before completion.
I sat in 1000′s of hours of public hearings with environmentalist/intervienors and AEC/NRC regulators and saw the AEC/NRC change from being advocates of Nuclear power to being the watchdog for the environmentalist and pressure from congress.
The time cycle to license a plant increased 10 fold. The proponents definitely lost the PR battle by not educating the public.
But that was before we talked about “carbon footprint” and “energy independence.” Whatever goes around?
Coal plant produce infinitely more than 50X CO2 then a Nuclear. Nuclear plants release 0 carbon emissions, and the nuclear waste from a Nuclear plant is about .001% of the volume of the waste ash from a coal fired plant. Tons of ash need to be hauled away from a coal plant, while the Nuclear spent fuel has been stored on site in spent fuel pits for decades.
Hydo is what it is. No more rivers to dam.
Wind has promise but what environmental impact? Solar is supplemental at best. Electric transportation needs to replace fossil powered in the long run. Battery technology is the key for that to happen. McCain is right to propose subsidies for new battery technology.
Hydrogen requires electricity to produce.
People are not willing to consider Nuclear power as “renewable” but don’t forget the “breader reactor ” that produces more fuel then it consumes. One word defines why we dropped that technology————- “plutonium.”

Very good point.
The same environmentalists promoting global warming are the ones who blocked nuclear power plants, refinery construction, and new drilling.

They are also the ones who brought us:
poison light bulbs
burn your food for fuel
let it lie, let it burn forest management

No group has done more to harm the planet than self described environmentalists.

The paragraph (in the first link) just above the contents section tells exactly why Nuclear power stations stopped being built in the late 70′s, little to do with greenies.

Statistically speaking, the more plants you have the greater the chance of a major accident no matter how good the safety procedures are.

I think you’re giving the anti-nuke advocates too much credit, they were never very effective in their protests. Actual nuclear accidents and public fear (three mile island, chernobyl) did far more in stopping our nuclear program than the protesters could have dreamed of accomplishing.