The greenies and alarmists will never see it, and most of them hate nuclear which is clearly going to be our future, we are twenty years behind on nuclear technology, because of it bad image.
Safe and environmentally friendly nuclear is possible if we put our minds to it.
Edit
Virtual Guy. is correct in that large nuclear stations take so long and cost so much money, but we turn out smaller nuclear reactors for submarines and aircraft-carriers, why can't we use them? also why is research on small thorium reactors ongoing, as far as I know only Norway and China are developing them.
The major reason we're so far behind on nuclear is that each new installation takes 10's of billions of dollars, has significant local impacts, and takes decades, start to finish - that's just for the normal earthmoving and construction work. It means you can't do very may experiments - the same trap we've fallen into in high-energy physics and nuclear fusion.
Materials science research, on the othe hand, is being conducted meaningfully on garage-shop budgets and timetables. Google has shown that for the near future we're going to need base-load support. That doesn't mean that that support has to come from nuclear. It also doesn't mean that developing countries that don't have grids yet will necessarily build their power systems to depend on large centrally-located backup power sources.
Unless we curtail the growth in our energy usage, renewables will have to be made to work or else we're doomed to endless global warming. This isn't a matter of greenhouse gas warming, either--this is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It isn't very hard math to do, it's essentially:
delta S >= 0
Yes and it's not good.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/renewable-energy-will-never-work-but-can-nuclear.php
