quote:

Four years ago this month, James Lovelock upset a lot of his fans. Lovelock was revered in the green movement for developing the Gaia hypothesis, which links everything on earth to a dynamic, organic whole. Writing in the British newspaper The Independent, Lovelock stated in an op-ed: “We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.”

Lovelock explained that his decision to endorse nuclear power was motivated by his fear of the consequences of global warming and by reports of increasing fossil-fuel emissions that drive the warming. Jesse Ausubel, head of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, recently echoed Lovelock’s sentiment. “As a green, I care intensely about land-sparing, about leaving land for nature,” he wrote. “To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy such as wind, water, and biomass cause serious environmental harm. Measuring renewables in watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.” All of this has led several other prominent environmentalists to publicly favor new nuclear plants. I had a similar change of heart. For years I opposed nuclear power, but while I was researching my book Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, my views completely turned around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

As easily as we can build nuclear power plants we can do what is outlined here and invest in solar instead:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/print.html

Did you know that instead of fighting a $3 trillion dollar war over resources that no one needs you could have more intelligently bought a solar panel system for every house in the USA? That would have meant free electrical for the house and probably enough juice for your car too.

But, you know, that would make too much sense...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber
(Check out what Germany's up to in solar... they're planning on having 1/3 of their electrical needs met by solar by 2012.) The US and other parts of the world could easily follow suit.

quote:

I'm sure there are places and situations where nuke plants would be appropriate. But this "all eggs in one basket" approach is what got us into this mess in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgarw

It's been my experience that when the word 'nuclear' is mentioned, they go into a 'fear lockdown' mode for the lack of a better term, and refuse to listen to reason.  There are several reasons for this, Chernobyl, Hiroshima, the media, being a few.  But it seems that we're all rational here.

A lot of this reasoning is based on a blend of new threats and old technology.  The newest of the majority of nuke plants were built in the 70's  with technology that was already old by 1970's standards.  Analog gauges, minimal computer technology and antiquated colling and control systems as another poster said are monitoring intensive, as well as maintenance intensive.  We have come a long way since then, including breeder reactors that combine both fission (splitting atoms) and fusion (fusing atoms) that use it's fuel much more efficient and produces much, much less waste that is less radioactive..  A reactor just developed can power a apartment complex that only stands 12 feet high or so and maybe half that in diameter, no control rods and a cooling system that does not even need outside cooling towers and only needs minimal monitoring.

The US, German,and British Navies are a excellent example of how safe modern reactor systems can be.  And  being used in a confined spaces to boot.  So modern nuke plants are safe.  Many will even shut themselves down automatically if something goes wrong.  The main reason, I suspect, that no more main power plant reactors are being built save for experimental ones, is a combination of fear from the general public who won't listen to reason, eviromentalists for the same reason, politicians who can't look good doing it, and utility conglomerates who get kickbacks from oil, gas and coal conglomerates.

As to the terrorist threat (the one calling for terrorists to kamikaze into them) it is plausible, but there are others who can speak with more authority, but with modern anti-aircraft artillery, and security systems, most plausible threats can be dealt with.

So, in essence, modern nuclear power systems are safe.  And if you're worried about the waste, there has been proposal to put it on rockets (older systems such as the Delta II and Delta III rockets, or even decomissioned  Polaris rockets) and shoot it into the sun where it just burns up as regular fuel.

That's the way I see it.  But I build towers for large windmills, so wind energy will be a be keeping busy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
I honestly don`t see the waste problem being solved and just storing it forever is not an option.

quote:

Taking the power today and leaving the waste for our kids to deal with tomorrow, is selfish,irresponsible and also not an option.