It's proven technology to generate power for us that produces no carbon dioxide, sulfur emmisions, lead, mercury, etc. The new designs by GE and the french are very reliable and safe. People just remember chernobyl and 3 mile island. I am not saying we should not develop geothermal, solar, wind, and wave, but nuclear power generation is proven. Some people argue that getting rid of the waste is a problem but there are plenty of plans for storing it and the yucca mountain facility is going to be opening soon.

The U.S?

People worrying about the harmful environmental effects of these two power sources along with nuclear power generation, was the reason these types of energy sources were supressed in the first place.

Would Americans trade off the Carbon dioxide emitting fuels for radiation, dead birds, and dead fish?

I'm all for it. I'd love to see our dependence on foreign oil reduced. I'm just wondering if the global warming crowd is going to clash with the Peta crowd.
Please not that a dam made for hydroelectrice power would destroy most species of fish upstream of that dam. This would then have wider effects on the larger ecosystem

In other words, humans will be ok, bears not so much.
And with the slower windmills comes the noise pollution....
Not to mention the number of windmills that would be needed to produce as much power as we use right now would probably cover the U.S.