While I don't oppose nuclear power, I do think we have an abundance of coal and natural gas. With the clean energy technology that is available to us, both can be used without messing up the environment.

We always have the power of wind. If this guy can do it I am sure big energy companies can...http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-7-2009/william-kamkwamba

Depending on the location, other natural sources of power can be a valid alternative. For instance hydro-electric power, wind power. I believe that in the future, individuals will be more responsible for generating their own power needs at home, for instance by installing solar panels or a wind turbine on the roof of their property. I think with this pattern of power management, and less reliance on mass production power stations, needs can be met with a much reduced level of emissions. Obviously big power stations, whether fossil-fuel or nuclear, will still be necessary, but less so for small scale users and individuals.

NO, THEIR'S SOLAR POWER OR THE BIG WINDMILLS FOR MAKING ENERGY. ONE THOUGHT. NO ONE NEEDS TO CUT EMISSIONS. MY GLOBAL TEAMS FOUND THE TRUE SOURCE AND OPERATION DELETE GLOBAL WARMING IS IN PROGRESS. THE REASONING BEHIND CHANGING FUELS IS THE OIL FIELDS ARE SLOWLY DRYING UP. ALSO IF YOU WATCH YOUR EXHAUST, YOU'LL SEE ONCE ITS PRODUCED AND IT MIXES WITH AIR, IT SEPARATES. I PROVED THAT TO THE E.P.A., BY THEY WENT WITH A BOOK OF THEORIES. THE TRUE SOURCE IS BEING DEALT WITH.

No, it's NOT the only option. There are a variety of other sources...like wind, geothermal, ocean wave, and solar. But these are very low power density sources and cannot come near satisfying our current power needs, much less our future ones. They can, however, suppliment them. Nuclear power is the only high power density option available which meets this criteria. I suppose we COULD tap geothermal power...but to make that a high power density option, we need to do some serious studies and R&D into figuring out how to tap the heat reserves within the depths of the mantle. Perhaps if we ever get off our duffs and develope fusion reactors to a level where they can produce power on a commercial scale, then we'd have another nuclear option as well. And fusion reactors would open up a whole new possibility for us as well...we could use fusion reactors as a neutron rich source with which we could "burn" long lived fission waste material...not for power, but to transmute them into short lived radioisotopes which would more rapidly decay away. We could thus use two types of reactors, fission and fusion, and minimize our nuclear wastes while meeting all our power requirements without ANY emission problems at all.

Pretty much, yes. Alternative energy sources rely upon nature. The whole point of using energy is to give us what nature won't. It is not a coincidence that wind and solar power are most available when we least need it. For instance, we need heat at night when the sun is not shining. We need air conditioning and warmth at the very times of the year when the wind blows the least. The only dependable source of energy must be something unnatural. Only nuclear can do it without CO2 emissions.