Today I went to see a presentation by a speaker from the National Resources Defence Council on global warming, and they mentioned renewable energy but neglected talking at all about nuclear energy. This was somewhat foreign to me until I asked the speaker about it and he (basically played down nuclear energy) by bringing up the issue of the costs of nuclear energy, the waste storage (i.e. Yucca Mountain), and weapons proliferation. A somewhat more detailed view of their viewpoints can be found here: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf Basically, on an energy-production standpoint, they believe that nuclear energy is unviable for these reasons and they do not think that we should be investing in nuclear energy but instead focusing on wind, solar, hydro, etc. I've heard arguments in the past that shifting America over completely to wind, solar, hydro, etc is rather impractical and that nuclear is the only way to go by default (unless you shift to coal but that defeats the purpose of easing the global warming problem). Sure, nuclear plants have very high fixed costs, but don't wind/solar/hydro/biomass also have high fixed costs, especially if one is trying to shift an entire nation's electricity generation to it? Unfortunately I was unable to adequately defend the nuclear industry when talking to the speaker (as I am only a freshman in college and I don't know all of the details) but I am curious to see what the nuclear industry's reply to these positions. Its rather counterintuitive to me that the NRDC and the nuclear industry don't get along well. Both are working to reduce dependance on foreign oil, and (for the nuclear industry indirectly) working to reduce global warming.