Perspective: Giving the nuke option a fair shake

My late Uncle Harold never lacked for strong opinions. He served with Patton's Third Army in Europe and life taught him not to waste time gladly suffering fools.

So it was that after he became an engineer, my uncle later worked on the construction of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power reactor near San Luis Obispo, Calif. It was, no pun intended, always a hot topic of debate at family gatherings.

Since I was a "no nukes" kind of guy, there was no way I would ever trust The Man to do right by the environment. To me, Diablo Canyon and all the other nuclear energy plants going up around the country constituted an invitation to inevitable disaster. My heart was with the green movement. Back then, anti-nuclear sentiment was running high--especially after the accidents at Three Mile Island in March 1979 and Chernobyl seven years later.

"Do you have any idea what you're talking about?" Uncle Harold said.

The overhang from the no-nukes era still casts a shadow. Any proposal to put more investment into nuclear energy always presents the risk of political suicide.

Well, that was a bit fresh. After all, I had watched The China Syndrome. OK, even though it was a movie, what if the scenario played out for real?

Uncle Harold, who was having none of it, refused to buy into any emotional arguments. He ticked off with lapidary precision a long list of benefits from nuclear energy and explained the safety mechanisms that accompanied the construction of modern plants. That was so unfair of him to use facts in an argument where it was clear that I was on the side of the angels.

Of course, I wasn't alone in making the popular mistake of twinning opposition to the spread of nuclear weaponry with nuclear energy. As if they were forever joined at the hip. My uncle died a couple of years ago. I don't know whether I've become any wiser over the years but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I sure wish I could get a do-over with him.

Fast-forward three decades after those conversations and this country--along with the rest of the word--is locked in a noisy debate about how best to reduce fossil fuel consumption. It's been a slow haul.

The overhang from the no-nukes era still casts a shadow. Any proposal to put more investment into nuclear energy always presents the risk of political suicide. So it is that the last time federal regulators in this country allowed work to begin on a new reactor was the same year as Three Mile Island (though the plants never got built). In fact, the U.S. has not brought a new commercial reactor on line since May 1996.

Even so, about 20 percent of the country's electricity gets generated by nuclear. Sounds impressive until you compare that statistic against France's 78 percent. (Not surprisingly, France's carbon dioxide output is one of the lowest per capita in Europe.)

Yet resistance to nuclear energy may be receding from its high water mark. In an interview with CNET News.com, Frank Bowman, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that some of the industry's once sternest critics are giving nuclear another look. The list includes the likes of Stewart Brand, the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog (you don't get more crunchy that that), and Pulitzer-winning author Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel). The most notable one-time opponent to change his mind about nuclear is Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. In the current issue of Chief Executive magazine, Moore says nuclear energy now has to be part of any solution to the nation's energy challenge.

That's not a switch that has gone down well with his former colleagues. In fact, Moore told the magazine, some within the environmental movement now treat him with "considerable disdain."

"It's quite ironic that the very people who are most concerned about climate change are generally the same ones who are against the solution that, from a technical point of view, is straightforward," he said.

After all the angst and questioning that attended my own about-face, I understand why it's so difficult. But the greens may find themselves increasingly isolated. Earlier this week, NRG Energy asked the government for permission to build a couple of reactors in Texas. Another company called Constellation Energy is also rumored to be close to applying for a license.

Forget saving the world--though that's an appealing idea--the growing global competition for increasingly scarce energy resources has turned the search for alternatives into a national security priority. I don't want to re-argue the pros and cons of the debate over climate change, global warming and greenhouse gas concerns but the time is long past for fresh thinking.

And that means giving nuclear a fair shake.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[mm12sutton]

Welcome

Welcome to the side of light. Its amazing the things we can see and accomplish when we get all of the facts. When more people look for fact instead of reacting to how they FEEL about something we might actually fix the energy needs of our country and many more pressing issues.

[budzinsorp1]

Thats right

In us there are a lot of stupid people that that like to let every one know that they think even thought they do not know that they are talking about. It?s nice to see that some of the tree huggers are getting more educated. Always have to know pros and cons before you can make up an opinion, which most people don?t do.
Moreover, the nuclear waste can be recycled and reused witch greatly reduces waste. However, it costs more than throwing it into the mountain for next generation to worry about.

[Reachstacker]

feelings

My feeling, exactly :)
BTW the Chinese licensed the graphite ball technology while Germany is shutting theirs down.
Go figure....
The old facts versus fiction issue I assume...

[Steve Jordan]

A lot of things need a fairer shake

Not to diminish nuclear's possibilities, but the issue of dealing with waste products is still a huge and unsettled one. And until that is better worked out, increasing nuclear power generation too fast could be a disaster. (One thing France doesn't talk about is the fact that they are shipping their waste to relatively unsecure and badly-maintained sites in Siberia, and the waste they keep in France is already close to threatening the groundwater in the Champagne region. So France isn't necessarily the model to follow.)

What we should be doing, even more extensively than nuclear, is applying other power sources, such as wind and solar, and in as many places as possible, right down to individual rooftoops. The more energy generated by each home (and the more conserved through energy efficiency), the less we'll need nuclear generation (or coal, oil, etc). Reducing the need for more plants, and more emissions of all kinds, is what we need.

[Renegade Knight]

Nuclear Buys us time.

The waste issue is artificial. Yes there is waste. But there was also uranium in our ground co-existing in nature before. That tells me there is a solution if you let Engineers solve the problem instead of draconian political and environmental debate over the issue cloud it beyond reason.

In the long run, Nuclear as it is today, is not sustainable. We will run out of fuel for nuclear plants just as we will run out of fossile fuel.

The time we get is what we need to make solar, wind, perhaps fusion,. and other power sources economical.

[meworkingman]

Everything has its drawbacks

The issue of dealing with nuclear waste products is largely settled technically, just not politically. Plus, the other forms of energy you mention have issues that have hardly even been addressed. For example, wind power requires huge tracts of land full of ugly windmills. Just ask Teddy Kennedy and Walter Cronkite (two supposed greens that fought the placement of windmill farms near their properties) how eager people are to live near these monstrosities. Besides they're a hazard for birds. Solar has its problems also. Solar cell panels aren't cheap, wear out over time and have their own disposal problems (they contain some hazardous elements).

Despite what I've said above, I do believe that both solar and wind power should have a place in our country's energy plans. However, neither of these options have the potential to shoulder as much of the load of this country's energy needs as nuclear. The fact that so many "greens" are so vehemently against nuclear power is just more evidence that the whole "global warming" movement is largely a fraud, meant more as a money-transfer mechanism than one that actually solves a problem.

[billmosby]

A wonderful example

Thanks for a great example of the ignorance and fear that has
kept nuclear energy from making a larger contribution to our
energy supplies.

Google Integral Fast Reactor and see a solution to the nuclear
waste issue, the nonproliferation issue, and reactor safety issue.
A solution whose various facets have been tested in a real,
operating system over a 40 year period with little public notice.
Ironically, it was public notice and the resulting knee-jerk fear
that got that program cancelled in the early days of the Clinton
administration.

Solar has an inherent global heating problem that would be
noticeable if it became economic and widely used (100 percent
absorptive of light vs 70 percent for the earth as an average).
Wind? Could be more benign, hard to tell until that source is
multiplied.

My point is not to avoid using various sources, but to recognize
the drawbacks and benefits and use them appropriately.

Until fear of solutions to energy supply problems is overcome by
a realistic view of both the problems and their solutions, we will
continue to be driven by fears and trendiness.

As for the author, thanks for nothing, bud. You're about 30
years too late.

[kjbfsjkdvb]

At first may seem so

Yeah, low CO2 emissions, very secure and all that. But the waste is the number one problem. It has to be kept secured for thousands of years and I'm not sure that is possible. The Egypt pyramids are in very bad state; so is China's great wall; now think about the Soviet Union's nuclear ships and what danger they presently constitute; consider some crisis that would reduce investment in securing the radioactive waste, like another stock crash, like 1929. An if Al Qaeda had crashed the September 11 planes into nuclear power stations? And even if Chernobyl (its reactor has some design flaws) is closed, other facilities with the same reactors are still operating throughout the countries that made Soviet Union.

Na... Forget about nuclear...

[billmosby]

Another one who hasn't heard

All the long-lived waste can be used as fuel, and if that is done, the
waste that is left becomes less dangerous than uranium ore after
500 years. Plus, the fuel is used so efficiently in such a case that
just the depleted uranium we have hanging around as waste from
past uranium refining and enriching would power the entire U.S. for
4,000 years. Google "Integral Fast Reactor" sometime.

[No Man]

Sounds familiar

20 years ago, my aunt and uncle were hardcore anti-nuclear/pro-green activists. They're still left-wing and drive a pair of hybrid vehicles. But even they can't understand why we're not at least investing in nuclear research, if not new plants themselves. It just makes sense.

[ColdMast]

just keep burying the nuclear waste?

the thing about nuclear energy is it is powerful, dangerously powerful.

more development need to be done in order to find a nuclear method that is clean.

you always have to tie the threat of nuclear winter to nuclear energy, "the bomb" is so simple to make.

[AnotherReader]

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

If "the bomb" is so simple to make, why is it that only a handfull of nations have figured it out? Iran has working on the problem for almost 20 years and they are just now figuring out how to purify the uranium.

The uranium used to make power is not the same isotope needed to make a bomb. While the other isotope is generally produced inside the fuel rods during operation, separating the isotopes is NOT a trivial task and it is NOT something you can do in your basement. Newer technologies like pebble ball reactors encapsulate each tiny fuel grain inside a super hard, super strong "ball", making the reprocessing of fuel even more difficult.

The whole nuclear power issue is so clouded by F.U.D. it's amazing. Oh well. When the Greenies' lights start going off for days at a time, they will have a very sudden conversion to the joys of clean nuclear power.

[meworkingman]

The "bomb" is easy to make?

quote:
you always have to tie the threat of nuclear winter to nuclear energy, "the bomb" is so simple to make.

Did you just pull this out of your butt? First off, the nuclear winter theory is tied to detonation of nuclear weapons, *not* nuclear power. Second, if making "the bomb" is so easy, why have the Iranians been trying to do it for some time now without success? I guess they're just stupid?

[fredmenace]

Fear of nuclear power plants = ignorance

This is not to say that nuclear energy is problem-free (but as someone else pointed out, nor are other sources, even wind and solar), just that those problems are blown way out of proportion due to sheer ignorance. I hear of complaints about the approximately 100 clean, safe nuclear plants in the US, but not about the thousands of dirty coal plants that are at least as dangerous (and far more polluting) individually (and far wosre collectively).

People point to Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl as major warnings of the danger of nuclear power. But the TMI accident resulted in NO DEATHS OR INJURIES.

While Chernobyl really was a big disaster, it wasn't all that exceptional, compared with various non-nuclear disasters. (And is also not a useful model for how safe nuclear is/would be in the US.) According to Wikipedia, 56 people died from the accident, and up to 4,000 more are estimated to possibly die later from cancer. Sounds bad. But what about coal? Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters and search for "coal". I total something like 1800 people killed in coal mining operations since 1913. And how many die as a result of poullted air? I bet US annual asthma deaths related to coal pollution are probably greater than lifetime deaths estimated for Chernobyl. (I expect there are far more CANCERS related to coal pollution than nuclear, as well.)

And remember Bhopal? That (non-nuclear) disaster killed around 15,000-22,000 people.

In addition, by continuing to resist nuclear-related funding, people postpone the arrival of solutions that could reduce nuclear waste from future plants to less than 10% of its current amount, maybe to as little as 1% (also reducing the amount of uranium that needs to be mined to generate the same amount of electricity) and that could even reduce EXISTING stores of nuclear waste by reprocessing it and using it as fuel for the new plants. (With the right kind of reprocessing, it need NOT result in weapons-grade material ever being generated.) In addition to being a far smaller amount, the resulting waste may also be less radioactive (or for a much shorter period of time). The best solution to even our existing nuclear-waste problem seems to be to go forward with constructing more advanced plants (though probably more "ordinary" plants that don't help solve the problem will also be constructed in the meantime).

This is sort of like when protestors goaded McDonald's to change from styrofoam coffee cups to paper. It turned out the paper cups used more energy, water, trees (obviously), and maybe even petroleum to manufacutre (since they were coated to make them waterproof), and, unlike styrofoam, they were not easily recyclable. (They're much better today, but at the time it was an environmental net step backward, though it probably did reduce release of CFCs etc.)

I'm definitely an environmentalist, but people need to get their facts straight rather than use ignorant knee-jerk reactions to make decisions.

[SteamChip]

NUCLEAR WINTER

QUOTE"you always have to tie the threat of nuclear winter to nuclear energy, <<

We need the nuclear winter to offset the global warming.

SAVE POLAR BEARS

[meh130]

Up from Luddism?

The anti-nuclear thing was something I never understood. It would make sense if the anti-nuke crowd were the uneducated, scared of things they cannot comprehend. Nuclear energy, the realm of physics, seemed a natural fit for educated, cosmopolitan, future-looking people. Indeed, in the case of France and Japan, highly educated, sophisticated societies embraced nuclear energy.

However, in America, much of the anti-nuclear hysteria came from the highly educated segment of society (and Hollywood types who like to think of themselves as smart). Perhaps it was driven by guilt (i.e., "We are wasteful and therefore are not deserving cheap energy"). Obviously there was an anarchistic element to many of the anti-nuclear protesters as well.

But then again, few 60's hippies studied nuclear physics, so maybe ignorance was the root cause of the resistance, after all.

What is interesting is, the best treatise on energy transformation I ever read said it is the improvement in energy density of the fuel which enables energy transformation.

Our steam engines went from wood to coal not because we ran out of forests, but because coal was more dense (in terms of BTU/pound and BTU/cubic foot) than wood. This made the transcontinental railroad possible, because a train could carry a limited amount of fuel, and there was a desert (i.e., no trees) to cross. It also meant pure steamships could travel oceans, not just rivers.

Likewise, petroleum was more dense than coal, not only easing the carriage of fuel, but enabling the creation of a much less bulky motive source, the internal combustion engine. The result was automobiles and airplanes.

When one considers this, one realizes the energy density of hydrogen is problematic. By the same token, the energy density characteristics of biofuels are problematic, not so much in the end fuel product, but in the source material.

It was after reading this I realized, we were not waiting for the energy source transformation from oil, it had indeed already happened. Nuclear energy met the theory of energy density transformation, and had occurred fifty years ago. Certainly there are limitations when it comes to vehicles which carry their own fuel supply (note French and Japanese bullet trains do not carry fuel, they connect directly to the grid), but the concepts of energy density also apply to the transportation infrastructure for fuel.

The anti-nuclear Luddites were blind like a child is blind to the truths of the world. I'm glad to see some of them finally reaching intellectual adulthood.

[K.P.C.]

Well thought out and clear comment

Especially the "energy density transformation".
Unfortunately that's not "touchy feely" enough for the greenies.

[timcoyote]

...old solution

"Moore says nuclear energy now has to be part of any solution to the nation's energy challenge."

Same thing they told me in Jr. High School. We all know we must ultimately move in an alternative fuel direction that may include nuke, but short term 3-Mile Island and China Syndrome movie delivered an effective one-two punch to the American opinion on nuke power and brought new development to a stand still.

[Tui Pohutukawa]

Global Warming - Manmade?

It is sad to watch how gullible many well meaning people are. It
was a stroke of (evil) genius, when the nuclear industry and their
governmental mouthpieces decided to buy into the CO2
paranoia, and use it for furthering the dubious cause of nuclear
energy.

Everyone needs to do their own research, and look at the
scientific facts. The world's climate always changes. We are
currently coming out of a particularly cold period, and move into
a slightly warmer one. CO2 makes up around 0.04 percent of
Earth's atmosphere, the manmade part is less than 0.01 percent.
Yet, suddenly these less than 0.01 percent are supposed to be
responsible for 100 percent of global warming. Does this seem
reasonable?

Nuclear power is an old, obsolete, and failed technology. It
offers no promises for the future. It is expensive and extremely
dangerous. Nuclear power stations are health hazards - forever.
They are prime targets for terrorist attacks. In short, they are a
very, *very* bad idea.

We need to invest in clean and sustainable forms of energy only.
Where there is a will, there is a way.

[meworkingman]

Agree and Disagree

Like you, I am *extremely* skeptical of many of the claims of the "global warming" movement. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't search for alternative energy sources. The turmoil in the Middle East should be more than enough impetus to find another energy source.

That being said, I completely disagree with your assertion that nuclear power is an obsolete and failed technology. If a technology is obsolete, it means that another technology has been developed that can completely supplant it. Please name for me the new technology that can generate comparable amounts of energy for comparable costs as nuclear can. Also, what is your definition of "failed"? Nuclear energy hasn't even been given a chance in this country and it sure hasn't failed in France.

Finally, I think that your litany of the dangers of nuclear power are just as over-blown as Al Gore's claims of global warming.

[SteamChip]

OBSOLETE?!?

How odd. Nuclear is still state of the art and developing.
Windmills and waterfall technology are still "hippie and sandal" --not serious enough to provide heavy industrial needs.

The waste can be placed in isolated remote areas so its not like everyone has to allot space in their basement for a cannister of nuke garbage.
Granted it stays around for thousands of years but maybe in the meantime something will develop to provide for its use as well.

Safety also improves over time so the danger element is also diminished as new ways of keeping it so are discovered.

Unfortunatly, unless we build more lots more coal plants, I don't see a practical solution for keeping everybodys air conditioning on and helping the polar bears.

[Phillep_H]

Oh

"There'll be pie in the sky, by and by
There'll be pie in the sky, by and by
..."

Your "where there is a will" is pure wishful thinking.

[cturkin21]

Yes, man made

You are reducing a complex argument to a ridiculously over-simplified and misleading conclusion.

Global Warming is real, it is here to stay, and nuclear power is just about our only practical option for survival.

http:/www.talkclimatechange.com

[sbwinn]

As my high school Government teacher used to say. . .

As my high school Government teacher used to say. . .

"If a young man isn't a little bit liberal he has no heart. If when he
is old he is still liberal he has no brain."

I'm sure the quote was not his own, but it really meant something
coming from him. He was an old liberal. You live and hopefully
learn.

[No Man]

sounds like my government teacher

"I was a liberal until I got my first paycheck."

[J H F]

Recognition goes to Sir Winston Churchill

Who said:

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

[Stephen Russell]

Dirty trash

I'm sorry but your just making the next MISTAKE when your refuse of the process is a toxic combination that lasts FOREVER in mankinds eyes.

[billmosby]

Only those who don't see..

.. that the Integral Fast Reactor project resulted in a nuclear power
system with a waste stream with a 500 year hazardous life, which is
probably shorter than will be the debate about what to do even
with it, vast improvement over the present situation that it is.

[ColdMast]

typo I meant north

shake it

[Pixelslave]

It's not about the science

I can accept all the scientific benefits of a nuclear plant, but there is always one reason that makes me against it -- it's not about the science, but the people who manage and operate it. It takes only one irresponsible person to create a disaster. He doesn't have to do this intentionally. It could just be a mistake, or that he's not doing his job, or whatever. As long as there's that human factor involved, I can't fully embraced this great technology because the cost of having a break down is enormous. So, don't talk about the science for now, and talk about how one can come up with a 100% safe plan that guarantees no such disaster will occur when errors caused by human happen.

[sfrank212]

Right I feel the same way about Drivers

Until such time we can guarantee that the ten of millions of drivers
controlling those deadly potential weapons I say NO more cars.

[PzkwVIb]

Nothing is 100 percent safe

Coal power plants, or lp gas turbine plants can blow up too. People will always be involved in power generation and negligence will always be a potential hazard.

More people die mining coal every year than have ever died because of a U.S. nuclear power plant. That's because no one has ever died because of a U.S. Nuclear power plant.

You are building a straw-man argument.

[shanedr]

Think again

It's not about the people who operate the plant, its about the design. Just because someone throws the wrong switch will not a)cause it to blow up b) release radioactive materials c)or allow terrorists access so they can quickly steal weapons grade materials.

[J H F]

Just because you are afraid

Fear is a healthy responce, but fear of Nuclear Power is not well founded. Nuclear Power even with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is far safer then what we are doing now, for us and our childern.

It is like people that don't want to fly because they feel that it would be safer to drive, even though the facts are the complete opposite.

[J H F]

Recognition goes to Sir Winston Churchill

Who said:

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

[Jon Pinkus]

Nuke a "Fair Shake"

WHAT? Using fission to BOIL WATER is like using a CHAIN SAW to cut a stick of butter. Oh, I know it's so HARD to put solar water heating on EVERY rooftop. It's so HARD ... oh poor baby ... to use the vast energy we are literally bathed in every time the sun comes up. Where are the colossal subsidies that have covered our planet with asphalt to facilitate the vast numbers of vehicles unnecessarily disgorged by the tens of thousands A DAY by the automotive companies? The vast potential of proper insulation and conservation of energy in homes and offices FAR OUTSTRIPS current nuclear plant production, and would make you plea for more look even more ridiculous than it is. Your plea reflects the strain to convince people of the false need to put more nukes into the corrupt energy and mining industry's revenue stream.

[shanedr]

The solution is harder than that!

Boiling water by solar is a small part of being green. If you covered your rooftop with solar panels including those producing electricity, then added the same for all businesses you still wouldn't have a complete solution.

Add wind power where there's enough wind, solar generators in the deserts. You just might have enough, but the cost is astronomical. Yet even then its not a solution, much of the materials to produce that generating capacity are not all that green.

Nuclear power uses less space (spelled green), its waste products can be stored in less space (green again). Once constructed it can be operated with few people. Most of all with today's technology nuclear power is safe. When space travel becomes cheaper a ready and safe disposal of nuclear waste is available - the sun.

The bottom line: Nuclear Power is cleaner, safer, cheaper and greener than coal, gas, wood, ethanol or anything else.

Stop thinking with your emotions and start using your head.

[smushtaq]

Nuclear energy

The question that the proponents of nuclear energy keep ignoring is what to do with the radioactive waste leftover from the generation of nuclear power. As it stands today, there isn't enough room to store the current waste from civilian nuclear plants and military weapons. Any attempts at building long term storage facilities are being met with fierce opposition from the people who live next to it. Radioactive waste is something that's not simply going to dissapear, unlike CO2 emissions ... they last hundreds of thousands of years!!!

[billmosby]

Speaking of ignoring...

I keep on posting stuff about the old Integral Fast Reactor
program, which showed that reactors can be made to run on
what we call nuclear waste presently, and emit waste that
becomes less dangerous than uranium ore in about 500 years.
In fact, I posted about it above under "A Wonderful Example..".

You might benefit by finding some new theoretical objections
instead of parroting the same decades-old one you used here.
Chances are the IFR solved a lot of other objections you may
have heard of, too, though. Google "Integral Fast Reactor" if you
are the least bit curious.

[shanedr]

Waste storage

There is more than enough space to store radioactive waste. The resistance to storage locations is from people who make up their facts and react emotionally. And that storage is only a temporary problem. The long term and permanent solution is to shoot it into the sun. Doing so wouldn't even cause a hiccup in that nuclear reactor.

[random753]

geothermal

We never seem to talk about geothermal. Its boring and has no exciting technology but geothermal produces more power than all other "alternatives" combined and could supply 100% of the electricity we use. Its fairly simple, dig two deep holes using oil drilling rigs. water is pumped down one hole into deep hot rock, it turns to steam and returns to the surface through the second hole. The steam powers electric generators.

Once built geothermal power plants are very dependable. The problem is cost. In most parts of the country you have to drill very deep to get to hot temperatures needed. Drilling is the main expense. Nuclear energy is very expensive and dangerous. Geothermal is expensive and safe. Why would we even consider nuclear.

[prototempo]

reactionary reactors

I'll have to say that if I really, REALLY, needed
to use a nuclear fuel cycle for my energy
needs, the Integral Fuel Cycle, tho expensive,
does seem to consume its' own nucleides. I
have to wonder at the declaration that seems
to say that the purification process during
reprocessing removes All the transuranics
and actinides from the waste stream. Don't
take much Pu to mess up your day. And
before we commit to a 300 year fuel cycle,
can't we have another look at solar thermal
with phase changing salt energy banking for
the dark and cloudy times? Won't take more
than a few square miles. Doesn't have the
drama of a muffed nuke waste launch, I know.

[Reachstacker]

waste

One mans trash is another mans treausre...
I would think that research in all forms of technology is desirable. At least pilot plants should exist of any technology to be able to assess that particular technology and build a cadre of experienced personnel.
But in the end it will always be money ( and politics) that determines what we use, what we eat, how we live.
As far as shooting "waste" into the sun? I see that as a waste of resources...

[Tui Pohutukawa]

The alternatives are here - right now

Who's fault is it then, when alternative, clean sources of energy
are not being used as much as they could be? There are plenty
of alternatives, if one cares to look for them. To name but a
few: Hydro-electric, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal-wave,
Hydrogen. All of these are in use, right now, somewhere in the
world. For example, New Zealand covers most of its energy
needs by using renewable sources.

Don't say it can't be done. Do some research instead, and find
out what is possible.

I was in Europe when Chernobyl blew up. A year later, I went to
Greece on a holiday, and locals told me about the white, metallic
fallout from the accident, which covered their vegetable gardens
with a fine dust. They told that "nature went crazy" shortly after,
with plants mutating and flowering in winter. Never, ever, do I
want to live through such an experience again.

Nuclear power is madness.

[Lo de Wijk]

Hortong and Steorn

Hortong and Orbo are names that hopefully will become known worldwide soon, as they stand for alternative clean free energy sources that are about ready to be launched publicly.
This is insider's info. Can't tell you more about it, but wanted to keep up your hopes of solutions that only seem impossible to those who are not in the know. Things are looking good.

[Reachstacker]

free?

It can be googled easy enough :)
Time will tell, although I am rather skeptic.
I am sure the Chinese would copy it in a heartbeat if it was useable

[savagesteve13]

Nuclear Power was never safe nor clean

1) The reactors are unsafe, and if one is blown up in accident or terrorism, it could irradiate entire cities or states. Nuclear bombs have only a fraction of the amount of nuclear material compared to the core of a reactor.
2) Nuclear power is expensive. Most of the costs are hidden by the government which doesn't want you to know the hideous bills for disposal of waste.
3) Nuclear power is dirty. Processing nuclear fuel creates waste, using nuclear fuel creates waste, and low level waste is rapidly building up so fast nobody knows what to do with it. thats why we are considering hollowed out mountains and such. Other nations used to dump their radioactive water at sea....good plan! (idiots).
4) Nuclear power won't solve greenhouse gases. The problem is automobiles, and its getting worse every day.

[jdavidlove]

Say hi to goofy

You're a goof. Nuclear power is a blessing. Fools unite!