http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/Nuclear.briefing/

In the 1970s anti-nuke activists essentially stopped the growth of nuclear as a source of US power in its tracks. In the 1980s and 1990s, gas-fired and coal-fired power plants, which emit 50X the CO2 levels of nuclear, were constructed. Combined, natural gas and coal generated about 20% more CO2 emissions than oil in the US in 2006.

As of 2006, nuclear power is used to generate about 19% of power consumed in the US. Coal is used to generate 49% and all fossil fuels combined generate 70% of our electricity.

Hydro and other renewables account for just over 9% of our electricity.

Renewables are great. Wind power makes a lot of sense. But for hyrdo and wind to be the answer, we would have to start consuming electricity at levels 40-50% below the present level, which is unrealistic.
Nuclear clearly represents a large part of the answer – - – IF the question is “how can we sharply reduce the CO2 emissions from generating the power that we generate.”

Most AGW proponents claim that it’s not about forcing a “back to nature lifestyle” through taxes or outright restrictions of energy use, so the question isn’t just “how can we reduce CO2 emissions.”

While uranium mining and processing involves some CO2 emissions, so does any mining and processing, and the levels are still a small fraction of the CO2 levels associated with fossil fuels.

If half the power plants constructed in the 1980s through today were instead of gas and coal fired, nuclear, our carbon footprint would be much lower than it is today.

And clearly more would have been built if not for the exaggerated claims and scaremongering of the anti-nuclear movement.

So is it fair to say that, if man-made CO2-driven warming is real, the environmentalists themselves are partly to blame?
waterboarding – I’d consider Jane to be one of the radicals.

Generate your own electricity