> If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power In theory. I used to say the same thing until recently. Now, I'm n

> If anyone actually believed it was "code red for humanity" they'd be pushing nuclear power In theory. I used to say the same thing until recently. Now, I'm not sure. Let's say we decide that yes, nuclear is the way to go, as it provides a lot of energy with barely any pollution (other than mining and construction). The 'waste', while a problem, is inconsequential compared to spewing crap in the atmosphere. Let's also assume that the designs will not cause proliferation concerns (we have such designs, as well as more plentiful fuels). In fact, let's assume we will use the best designs we have in general. Even then, what's the turnaround time to construct new power plants? The figures I've seen suggest it takes almost a decade until a plant is operational. Do we still have the time do build them in enough numbers to make a difference?