For all of the talk about nuclear power being a potential solution to the problems of a carbon-based economy, the same challenges associated with nuclear power 30 years ago are still with us today. Has an acceptable alternative to "burying nuclear waste where no one will ever find it" ever really emerged? What about the costs associated with the "new" security threats of the post-9/11 world?

Aside from Edwards' outright rejection, the Democrats too are mostly invested in the nuclear option as a potential green technology, provided it can be, well, "greened." But it wasn't Edwards who was taking a really bold stance, but Obama, who went beyond the need for finding alternative sources of clean energy and instead linked our energy needs to our consumption habits.