In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years. That's the conclusion of a new nuclear grand plan published May 13 in PLoS One. Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that's missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal to build hundreds of fission-based reactors, largely due to concerns about safety and cost.The safety concerns are mostly fictitious. The cost concerns are mostly in dealing with political and regulatory problems. If there were the will to build the plants, they could be built cheaply.
"If we are serious about tackling emissions and climate change, no climate-neutral source should be ignored," argues Staffan Qvist, a physicist at Uppsala University, who led the effort to develop this nuclear plan. "The mantra 'nuclear can't be done quickly enough to tackle climate change' is one of the most pervasive in the debate today and mostly just taken as true, while the data prove the exact opposite."
When you hear someone who says that there is an urgent need to do something about global warming, but who is also against nuclear power, then he is just a leftist ideologue who is abusing the science for political purposes.
Some global warming alarmists, such as the most famous one, James Hansen, are in favor of building more nuclear power plants.