To call me a fan of nuclear power would be an understatement, but I find that most people have hideous misconceptions on both sides of the debate. Talking about "green power" is difficult when people on both sides don't have a clue what they're talking about!
To me, the biggest misconception that anti-nuclear people have is that nuclear power is unsafe. I won't go into detail, but it's not. It's completely safe.
My side is misinformed, too. We seem to think it's economical. It's not. Virtually every other form of power - green or otherwise - is roughly equivalent or cheaper. It's not really nuclear power's fault, but WHY it's true is irrelevant: nuclear power is expensive.
I like nuclear power, primarily because it's a very pretty process, using the untapped energy in the depth of the atom to power whole cities. It just feels more efficient, more scifi. I think a lot of people feel the same way. It's a beautiful solution that never came into its own.
To some extent, I blame the fact that nuclear power isn't the best solution on Jane Fonda. Panicky responses to nuclear power have let it linger behind other options as fewer dollars to go research and refinement of the technique.
But the truth is the truth, regardless of how pretty I think nuclear power is. It's just not the best alternative.
The best alternative is solar, although I won't argue against as much use of other green methods as is plausible.
Although solar panel production produces lots of heavy metal runoff and scads of CO2, it is a scalable solution whose technology is advancing rapidly. I don't think it's too much to assume that there will be a "solar panel paint" by 2040. Unlike wind power, it's useful in both places where we ARE and places where we AREN'T, and it isn't noisy.
However, that's really answering the wrong question. The question isn't "what's the best green energy source?". The question is "how rapidly will our energy requirements drop once we start thinking in those terms?".
New monitors use a fraction of the electricity of old CRTs. There's a breed of low-energy computer processor already on the way, and more in development. Many of us use energy efficient lighting, and it's already a generation and a half out of date.
I don't expect us to "solve the energy crisis" by producing more energy of any sort. I expect us to "solve the energy crisis" by building a computer that uses ten watts of power and an air conditioner that uses twelve.
Yes? No? I'd like to hear your opinion, so long as it isn't a fanatical support or hate of nuclear power. That's not the point of the post.