Haven't we already solved our environment/energy crisis?

You might benefit from a bit more study of your topic. Nukes are not the answer and are not nearly as safe as proponents pretend. If you think I'm wrong, kindly explain how you know so much more than a physicist with thirty years' experience dealing with radiological issues.

And you also could benefit from broadening your horizons regarding global warming. There is not a single reputable scientist who denies that it's happening and that human activity is accelerating the process to such a degree that major, and very dangerous, changes are already under way.

Given your lack of understanding of the hazards of nuclear energy, I find it impossible to believe you "ran nuclear reactors" in the Navy or anywhere else. A high school physics class would teach you far more than you know at this point in your life.

Nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of energy out there. Even solar (one of the most expensive renewables) with back up battery power is cheaper than nuclear. The only possible way civilian reactors are ever built in the US is with government (taxpayer) loan guarantees and zero liability for any damage caused by an accident- taxpayers again would pick up the tab for damages that could be hundreds of billions of $$.

It only takes tiny little particles for the reactor true, but those tiny little particles are spread out over large areas, and hardly any exist in the US. We'd be captive to foreign interests again. I'd rather give my money to Australia than Saudi Arabia, but that's another story.

If enough nuclear reactors were built to replace half the worlds power (about equal to what coal creates now) we'd be out of uranium in 75-100 years- about the time we'll be running really low on even the hard to get oil. True, breeder reactors would vastly (49 times) extend that time period, but they were outlawed in the US in the early 1980's because the uranium could be used for weapons production, it produced huge amounts of poisonous waste and the mining companies didn't want their profit margin cut into.

The navy has unlimited funds and small reactors. They can afford to make them safe since they aren't trying to make a profit and the reactors are usually out at sea. Land based reactors need to be near large bodies of water for cooling, either rivers or oceans. We all know how expensive water front property is and how much money owners of said property are willing to spend to keep reactors away from their houses.

When nuclear waste has an effective life expectancy of "FOREVER" that in itself makes for more of an environmental impact than some spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Chernobyl was just a tiny accident too- several hundred square miles of the Ukraine will be uninhabitable for effectively forever. Yep- tiny.

There is a global agenda to push nuclear as a clean energy source- it is not clean, and it currently threatens the water supplies of tens of millions of Americans because there is no permanent repository. Even if there were, such as wht Germany is slowly trying to get online, there is no way to guarantee safe transport. Then look at Chernobyl.

The US has enough trouble trying to account for existing stores of radioactive materials, the lone breeder reactor that had been running was shut down due to shortcomings of the design.

One must understand that no reactor can ever be built safer than greed will allow. Corners will be cut, substandard products will be used, and such "innovations" as the "CanDu reactors" fall short of expectations considerably.

There is no safe nuclear eenrgy- but we really do not need it. There is plenty of oil, Go talk to people out in the field, find out how effective the new technologies are. The US is not running out of oil nor is it draining the earth of it - there is plenty of it.

Global warming? A myth. A myth used to get people to voluntarily submit to a new feudal society where the elitists make all decisions as kings did in the past, and with just as much isolation from reality as well.

There are emissions... water vapor. cooling the uranium rods produces massive amounts of water vapor which is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, and if all coal plants were switched to nuclear, there would be extremely high levels of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Now that still probably wouldn't be as bad as the amounts of CO2 however we live in a capitalist society and the major oil companies in the U.S. (that can generate of $30 billion dollars of profit in one year) account for a large chunk of the GDP. The only way the U.S. will become carbon-free is with a gradual change from fossil fuels to renewable energy/hydrogen/nuclear energy. Some companies are going to have to start out-competing Exxon and other oil companies with green ideas that can appeal to the people and increase sales.

@NoiseWords. The Sun gives off infrared radiation which we are affected by in the form of UV light, that's what sunscreens protects. Gamma rays come from other planetary bodies in space and are absorbed or reflected by Earth's atmosphere and we are protected from that intense radiation.

In an ideal world where we could dispose of nuclear waste safely, I would agree with you. But it isn't just nuclear wastes we have to concern ourselves about. The very first use we ever made of artificially produced accelerated nuclear fission was in the use of weapons in an attempt ot end a war.

The half-life of the products of nuclear fission, such as strontium 90 is a very long time. Strontium, because it has chemical properties similar to calcium, is taken up in the body where it assimilates itself in the tissues of bones. The end result is usually cancer.

And this is just one example. The immense of effects of radioactive materials and the energy they give off is beyond the scope of human reckoning.

we should not rely on *one thing* to save us all. if nuclear fails, which some plants inevitably will, then many innocent people will suffer the consequences. I am not arguing that modern nuclear plants are not safer, however, there is always the potential risk if more power plants start sprouting in places with less financial assets. people thought oil rigs were too controlled to fail, yet the BP oil disaster clearly shows that things aren't exactly the way we want to believe.

why not rely on multiple sources of renewable energy which also have zero net emissions. let us not forget that nuclear plants are almost entirely made out of cement and concrete. the industry which releases 5% of anthropogenic CO2. http://industrial-energy.lbl.gov/node/193

why not rely on solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, biofuel, and other renewables. if one goes down, we are not screwed.

The book military assault on the environment describes contammination of the sea by old navy reactors from navy submarines dumped into the sea beds of oceans. True old sites could be used like Canadian pickering plant. Seems cheaper though just to create take action section in nationa and local news to ban car ads using mcluhan;s laws od obsolescence that when something is useless like car and current media methods it becomes obsolete.

Due to over use of non renewable source of energy like petroleum products there occur energy crisis.Consumption is more than production.In such a condition alternative source of energy should be used.

still you cant make the solution with it. once go out of a metro city busy road and think of lakhs of metro cities vehicles through out the world. only nuclear power cant make the solution.

The average joe that hears the word nuclear, and thinks: "chernobyl", "glow in the dark", "mutant turtles", "boom"...

that's why.

They don't understand that the SUN itself gives off nuclear radiation 24/7, more than your dental x-ray per year. Sunscreen doesn't stop X-rays and gamma rays at all FYI.