Nuclear power presents the only viable option for reducing CO2 output

I believe that solar energy and wind are in fact viable options of reducing co2 output. Solar and Wind do not pose grand ecological and human threats like nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste has to be specifically and carefully stored. pro has mentioned overall lifetime cost of nuclear energy is cheaper per kilowatt, but pro forgets to remember that nuclear fuel will only last 200 more years at current energy consumption(which is increasing) and that governments have to invest extensively into things such as nuclear waste storage places like the WIPP that cost's the federal government $19 billion. Nuclear power only powers 11% of the worlds electricity, increasing that power level to 100% will cause a 9X increase in nuclear fuel demand, which will deplete these supplies within 1-2 decades. Using basic math and estimations, we find that nuclear fission is a short term solution to a long term problem. Solar and wind have been around since almost the dawn of the Earth. Why not invest in these new technologies that continue to become more efficient, easier to implement, and better for the planet. Nuclear power plants might i add can cause severe ecological damage due to its ability for radiation. The fukushima disaster costed Japan around $140 billion dollars to decontaminate, evacuate, and so many other problems. These nuclear disasters have occurred very oftenly throughout history. A tsunami triggered this disaster and in order for nuclear to be more viable, we have to place these power plants farther from the coastline where electricity demand is highest to avoid these costs. Also, 5% of electicity produced is lost through long transmission wires and conversions which will reduce the cost-competetiveness of nuclear power plants. Solar and wind farms are renewable unlike nuclear energy. solar and wind will not deplete for another billion years or so whereas nuclear energy will probably deplete within 1-2 decades if nuclears is used as the prime source of electricity. If you look at the levelized cost of electricity here http://www.eia.gov... you will find that the lcoe of wind it is 80.3 per mwh while advanced nuclear energy is at 96.1 per mwh. Hmmmm, which is cheaper? Look, wind and solar will solve, new tech is advancing to make them more efficient. Nuclear fission supplies will only last a couple of years if you implement them to their absolute capacity while wind will always blow as long as there is the sun to stir the air. Solar will always be here until the sun burns out. You can't solve long term global warming with short term nuclear energy, It is illogical. Even if the cost of creating wind turbines and solar energy may be bad for the environment now, the investement will eventually pay off as these are long term solutions that are renewable and don't require a fuel supply that will eventually run out. Once all the nuclear fuel is spent, what do we do? Burn more fossil fuels? No, eventually when all the nuclear fuel is gone, they will have to develop solar, wind, and other sources of renewable energy in order to attain long lasting energy supplies. http://www.world-nuclear.org... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.eia.gov...