Unsafe, unsound and unattainable  October 13, 2005  The real
danger of going nuclear is diverting policymakers from
developing non-polluting alternatives and cutting waste, writes
Alan Roberts.  NOW that the world has generally accepted the
overwhelming evidence for climate change, a number of the usual
and unusual suspects are proposing we develop safe nuclear power
as a safe option and as a fallback if oil runs out soon. The
nuclear industry has found some surprising friends, including
James Lovelock, developer of the Gaia hypothesis, who hopes that
nuclear energy will become a bridge to cleaner, safer
technologies.  Debate about the morality of nuclear power has
become intense. However, it's purely academic. There's no point
in arguing about whether nuclear power should be used to replace
fossil fuel. The truth is it can't — it won't do the job, and
there isn't enough uranium.  Let's examine a few facts.  A shift
to nuclear power — even if it were possible — would have no
effect on the bulk of the greenhou