Due to its density, nothing yet surpasses nuclear power for electricity generation nor do other methods offer the spin-offs (desalinization, hydrogen production for fuel cells, etc.) in the quantities needed to be viable. And consider the advancements in safety, facility size, efficiency and now, smaller-sized units like Toshiba's 4S and the Hyperion Power Module as evidence of thinking "outside the box".

Personally, I don't worry about CO2 emissions as, from my research, water vapor, cloud cover and ocean currents appear to exert a greater influence on climate than what amounts to be 0.038% of the atmosphere. No excuses for flagrant polluting but don't stop all activity in pursuit of perfection.

It always has been, so far. Not perfectly, but much more so than what it has replaced.

Fossil fuels are enormously more expensive than uranium, so you should always suspect any objection to the use of uranium of being oil-funded or gas-funded. Those who pretend to think switching to nuclear won't improve everyone's safety should be watched for failure to walk the walk.

That means although they claim to believe it is not an advance in safety, when it comes time to choose between putting their own skins near either a fossil fuel burner or a nuclear reactor, they'll go with the reactor. This behaviour has been observed on the part of Greenpeace contractors.

It sounds promising, but is it safe?