Is not the elimination of green house gases a sufficient reason to build nuclear power plants?

The environmental impact of a nuclear power plant is much smaller than most other forms of electrical power generation, except for a Niagara Falls.

All forms of electrical power generation have drawbacks:
Natural gas results in green house gas emissions plus the release of particles associated with causing asthma.
Coal results in green house gas emissions, acid rain, and radioactive waste. Coal plants in the US release three times the amount of uranium consumed by all of the nuclear power plants in the US.
Oil results in green house gas emission and possibly acid rain.
Large scale wind generation has been shown to disrupt existing weather patterns by creating a Lee effect. It also can have an impact on wildlife.
Solar power is expensive but if the predictions for the current under development products is correct, then sign me up.
Nuclear power is expensive but it is the only current solution that controls 100% of its waste.
Fusion is extremely expensive and unproven. Engineering estimates indicate that there will be an extensive production of radioactive waste.

Actually if you got rid of the lawyers and lawsuits, then nuclear power is one of the least expensive methods of generating power. We should be building enough nuclear facilities to take care of our power needs for the next 50 years, but we won't. Our politicians are cowards, and the anti-nuclear crowd won't let it happen. I guess we'll just have to burn more coal and oil 'cause God ain't makin' any more Niagras.

We are our own worst enemy.

Just recently, there has been work that has potentially revealed a method to accelerate the decay of left over nuclear fuel. If we focused on solving this issue, then Nuclear Energy would be a no brainer.

Sadly, just because you have "Nuclear" in the name, it gets the wackos all off kilter. Maybe we should have just called it "Magical" Power, or "Really High Tech Stuff You Wouldn't Understand" Power, or even "The Stuff You Slept Through During Chemistry" Power.

Oh well.

That's great, Greg. Let's remame it "Magical" power.
Artificial sweetener keeps doing that. First we has Good old Sweet-n-low, next came Equal which was supposed to be better but contains aspartame. We all know the studies done on that. Next our wonderful Splenda which was supposed to be made with real sugar cane. Turns out, that is nonsense and the junk is probably worse than all.
My point is: Keep coming up with alternatives to the real thing and you will eventually "use a teaspoon of sugar", ((unless you are diabetic) Expect My diabetic dad would use sugar to regulate himself after the insulin would start dropping his count too low.)

We keep trying to make alternatives to the neclear power when It is so very much the best form of generation. So let's call it Star Trek Power....But maybe the huge cooling towers might tip them off.

Where do you people come up with this stuff. The absolutely most expensive electrical production comes from nuclear. The lowest cost production of electricity comes from hydraulic, that is water generation, and the middle cost is coal. That is the makeup of the "Bulk Electrical System", or known as the BES. These are the basis of North Americas power grid. The next fundemental of this system requires the operators ability to adjust to the conditions of the system. That means adjusting to capacitance or inductance, VARS, to stabilize how the wires react to the customer. Sorry, to those green people, but the turbines don't fulfull this requirement they do not adjust to market conditions, nor to BES VARS. When Wheel of Fortune is on and there isn't any wind, the turbine system is down, nor do they produce if the wind is too high, sorry again, no Wheel of Fortune.
As for nuclear, the stuff is deadly for the next 23,000 years! The waste has to be stored someplace how about your neighbourhood? Come on! What do you care, it was cheap power wasn't it? We can't read the Egyptian writings from 3000 years ago, and you people are smarter than all the collective civilization combined, ask Obama. Who wants the job of security over the nuclear waste sites, its the best employment for the next few thousand years. Isn't that the best make work project.

All alternative energy is just extra energy. Does anyone think we will not burn or trade in fossil fuel in the future?
Here�s an example of how things work, A nation closes coal fired power stations thanks to carbon trade money building a hydroelectric PowerStation which meets all the nations electricity needs while saving millions of tonnes in co2 emissions in the process.
A green victory, you may say, a Kyoto success story, hold the front page.
Once an iron ore exporter the nation now has the energy capacity to produce finished steel using the coal it once used to produce electricity.
The nation experiences an economic boom, supplying steel plate to China, wages go up and people buy new cars and electrical appliances imported from its trading partner, which raises local energy demand. The new funds easily cover extra expenses generating more economic growth and attracting international interest.
The nation builds wind farms and buys nuclear reactors but overall co2 just increases.
Alternatives like consumerism offers no choice at all.