Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power...

Fission has too many problems but it does work everyday.
Fusion He3 looks great and can be accomplished.
Solar and wind are not without heavy metal pollution and environmental disturbance problems at the installations.
Electric vehicles take too long to charge and don't go far enough between charges.
Carbon fuel is needed by the airline industry.
I believe in a mixed set of solutions.
That's what we have now.
Things will evolve - just not sure if it's happening fast enough.

One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.

Energy indepency for homeowners comes in the form of solar, but it often times is simply not enough, especially in northern europe. It's also subsidized in some countries making it appear cheaper or more efficient while it is not.
But solar is getting more efficient, and appliances are getting more efficient as well. So there's hope still.

Nikola Teslas career was destroyed by Morgan, who also destroyed the US's banking system, because he claimed free energy. Tesla was discredited just after he had just given the world AC power.
I once worked in the Middle East and I asked an Englishman who was head geologist whether he thought oil companies cover up energy discoveries and he said he didn't think they did he knew they did.
In the 80s cold fusion was ridiculed.
Only centralised energy wil be allowed by the 1% who own 99%.

How would millions of ppl die with a second? Oh wait, it doesn't, it can't, never has and never will.
Even the biggest (and only) nuclear disaster in history (Chernobyl) didn't kill millions in a second. Even the Chernobyl power plant is a wooden shack compared to modern reactor designs.
There will always be place for wind and solar, especially for solar as efficiency increases and costs go down. But right now, society requires to much energy to be supplied by these sources alone.

Yes, you are right... They don't die in a second. They agonize with cancer for months and only then, they die.
I understand that Chernobyl was an insecure plant but accidents do happen. It doesn't necessarily need to be an overload. A leak is an accident and also contaminates, in a smaller scale, obviously.
Plus, you need to get rid of that uranium after you use it. Where do you put it? In you garden?
I know that the wind and solar power we've got at present is not even close to enough.

All we have to do is build more of these. In the US, for example, you could use the deserts of Nevada and Texas for instance...
The goverment needs to cut taxes and encourage investors, offering them benefits, in order to make it work.
It won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen within the next 10 years. But it can happen if everyone does their part...

A 1,000 MW coal fired power plant consumes 9,886 tons of coal per day. Replacing this coal with 1,595 tons of solar derived hydrogen each day avoids the production of over 30,000 tons of CO2 each day. Combining the stranded coal directly with 890 tons of added hydrogen makes 75,031 barrels of gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel worth $5.25 million - more than the electricity! The site is 60.4 sq km of solar panels

I have ultra-low-cost solar panels that produce a ton of hydrogen directly from 210 GJ of sunlight and 9 kilo-liters of water at a cost of $100. A ton of hydrogen when burned contains as much heat energy as 6.2 tons of coal, 143 dekatherms of natural gas, or 23.4 barrels of crude oil. Each ton of hydrogen when combined with 11 tons of coal produces 80 barrels of gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel. So $370 of material is easily converted into $5,600 of easily salable fuels.

The world today uses energy at 17 trillion watt rate. Industry serves only 20% well. There is not enough wind power to meet current or future needs. Also, oil at $61 per barrel translates to energy costs of $10 per GJ. Wind Energy is $0.36 per kWh This is $100 per GJ 10x as much - or $610 per barrel equivalent. Your concerns are misplaced and overwrought promoted by disinformation supported by oil industry who seeks to get top $ for remaining oil.