Something glowing to think about

... if global warming (now restyled global 'climate change' to account for largely stagnant global temps over the last 10 years) is a disaster for both the human population and earth (a point I'm not willing to concede except for the purposes of this argument) why isn't nuclear energy the easy, obvious, most discussed answer?

Wind farms need vast stretches of open, relatively flat space. Don't know if you've noticed this, but there isn't a huge abundance of that just lying around twiddling its thumbs. The one area where the preceding is true is often met with horrific antipathy. That area is off shore.

Solar is kinda reliant on a sun that, especially on days like today, tends to be missing from time to time. Like at night. And winter in the Northeast. And Seattle. Oh, and its expensive.

Nuclear, however, is relatively inexpensive. Plants are already designed and the technology is already "mature" and thus viable. The space needed is significantly smaller than a wind or solar farm for similar output. And its pretty darn safe. The last incident I know of if TMI, and it resulted in (disputedly) zero population deaths and (again, disputedly) few or no injuries.

I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have drawbacks. Disposal of the waste presents big issues, certainly. But if we are truly on the edge of an ever deepening chasm called global warming/climate change, isn't it a small price to pay? If we are, I think its disingenuious and suspect NOT to discuss the one thing that could save us. I'm not saying we have to forgoe all advancements in solar and wind. I'm not saying solar and wind can't be the future.

But the reality is:

Burning coal accounts for 36 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, natural gas 20 percent, and oil (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil) 44 percent. Since 90 percent of the coal burned in the U.S. is used to produce electricity, replacing all coal-fired generating plants with zero-carbon electricity generation plants would just about cut emissions by 2 billion tons.

Currently, 1,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants supply about 45 percent of the country's electricity while 104 nuclear power plants produce roughly 20 percent. So to replace all coal plants with nuclear plants would mean building 250 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants over the next 10 years, or about 25 new plants per year. That could be done for about $1 trillion.

Look at the comparison: According to the Electric Power Research Institute and using standardized wind generation costs you would need 500,000 windmills costing $1.4 trillion or $4.5 trillion in solar panels to replace all the coal-fired plants in the country. Windmills would cost 40% more and we'd require a lot of them. Solar would just cost a lot.

We are either ignoring the obvious, easy answer to a looming "disaster," or something else is going on entirely in the climate change/global warming movement.

Disclosure: The FDA regulates apples & cigarettes. Also, before I'm smeared as a smog lover: I compost and consider every earth-friendly innovation I can.