Why is Nuclear not an option? You've simply repeated this assertion over and over.

I explained why nuclear certainly is an option.

1. It provides abundant, cheap long-term energy.
2. Waste arguments can be dealt with.

A. The waste can be managed safely:

A.1. Storage containers are reliable and tested against many stresses (impact, submersion, immolation, piercing, etc).

A.2. Waste storage safety records are excellent, far better than most other energy industries.

A.3. Spent Fuel Reprocessing techniques can significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste, as well as provide other useful products in the process.

3. Safety

A.1. Refer to the above.
A.2. Transportation safety records are excellent
A.3. Pebble Bed Reactors


4. Alternative Sources

A.1. Alternative sources will never provide the quantity of energy required by nuclear power at the same green cost. Nuclear power has zero emissions, provides abundant energy, and is far more efficient. Windpower is highly inefficient and would likely cause more environmental damage by taking up far more are, thus disturbing more habitat.

A.2. Solar power highly pollutes and maintenance is difficult and costly. It's also unreliable under certain conditions that do not affect nuclear power.

A.3. A lot of hydropower requires vast ecological damage to set up.

A.4. Geothermal is limited.

__________________

That's like saying if aliens come and sterilize the planet, it's okay if it's eventually replaced by new life settling in the new habitat. It still requires devastation of current life. Saying eventually it will be repopulated by new life isn't much of a consolation.

Given the excellent track record of nuclear power, the small chance of nuclear causing harm is better if you can choose between the two.

__________________

You're using a double standard. "Solar power highly pollutes" is only accurate when you view it's constuction process, and in which case it is only pollutes because the energy that is used to make it comes from coal, that is no fault of the solar panel, but fault with current energy. If we are to include construction pollution, than the construction of 400 nuclear power plants will also pollute like crazy.

For solar panels, "maintenance is difficult and costly," yeah, when it is needed, with is almost never. Solar panels have no moveing parts, and last for decades and decades, we actually have no real idea of how long they will last. You can still buy solar panels made back in the 60's that still work fine. Solar was used by NASA in to power satalites and rovers, and in all initial cases, the solar panels had life spans that were over 10 times greater than first predicted.

For A.3 (under alternative) has been addressed and you've not presented anymore evidence that it "requires vast ecological damage" unless you define "damage" loosely.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Not really, it like lakes are natural, rivers are natural, and the animals and planets that live in rivers will still survive after a lake is put in, as there is still a river leading to and from the lake. There is no mass extinction, not removeing entire species and replacing them with others. Salmon swim in rivers and don't like lakes too much, but the dams don't effect them (the fishermen and sea lions are another story though).

I'd disagree, along with the thousands that have died from the Chernobyl insident. And there have been other incidents that have resulted in not so nice effects.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Maybe solar changed, since I lasted researched it. I will have to look into again. The research indicated they were pretty unreliable and didn't provide nearly the energy needed, so it would be nothing more than a pipe dream to consider them as a real energy source, such as nuclear. Maintenance was also an issue, since they were easily damaged.

Of course the construction of nuclear pollutes. It's also vastly more realistic and useful.

I don't see how you can't see how flooding and destroying gigantic habitats isn't harmful. It clearly is. Even if you populate it later with different species.

__________________

I think that you'll find thousands of ranchers in middle america (along with Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington) disagreeing with that. Maintenance is rarely and issue because they don't breakdown, yes they can easily break if say, someone is throwing rocks at them or doing something else to vadalize them (so they aren't recomended in cities or places where that may be an issue).

I'm curious as to the research you've seen as the numbers would suggest otherwise.

It isn't poluated with difference species, but with the same species and with more species. It is a completely natural change, the formation of a lake. It's not like clearing away thousands of arces to build a city. That is destroying habitat, because the past species cannot live in the new enviroment, but after the lake forms, all the past species can still live there, and still do.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

You're under the impression that hydroelectric power only impacts aquatic species by giving them an expanded lake habitat. This isn't true. You're only looking at the aquatic habitat. In reality, hydroelectric dams often flood vast swaths of territory, wiping out terrestrial habitats for mammals, birds, and flora. Terrestrial mammals don't breathe water, sadly. Those animals cannot live in that same habitat. It's gone. They are dead. I'd say that's destruction. Not only that....

But there are other problems. According to New Scientist magazine, and a consultant for the IPCC, many hydroelectric plants also have hidden environmental costs which aren't factored into their output. For example, "Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels"

According to a study in the journal Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, "the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil."

The problem stems from the nature of flooding large areas that weren't under water. Above, I said dams cause significant flooding in terrestrial habitats. This literally wipes out not only the animal species, but also the flora. The flora isn't just removed, as would be the case if you replaced it with nuclear plants. It would be under water. According to their research: "large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines."

Moreover: "man-made reservoirs convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into methane. This is significant because methane's effect on global warming is 21 times stronger than carbon dioxide's."

Hydropower often really isn't that green, in addition to the problem of causing the deaths of tens of thousands of terrestrial animals for relatively limited use.


Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed - earth - 24 February 2005 - New Scientist

__________________

For ecological costs of major dam projects, let's look at China's Three Gorges dam. Although most dams are not as massive, it does serve as an example of the types of damage that happen, just on reduced scale.

For example: " The dam will alter the natural environment, and therefore, an almost
infinite number of species will be affected by the project. The endangered species affected by the project include the Giant Panda, Chinese Tiger, Chinese Alligator, the [...], the Chinese Sturgeon, and the Siberian Crane."

Moreover: "In addition to the above stated endangered species being
threatened, the dam will destroy commercial fish stocks and the
livelihood of fisherman. It will also induce the danger of
earthquakes and landslides."

__________________

According to the WWF, there are also additional adverse ecological impacts to dam construction in the form of habitat destruction:

WWF - Dam problems - Environmental impacts

It impacts migratory fish, it can lead to erosion, decrease of water quality, etc.


I am not saying our energy sources should be perfect. I am simply addressing the claim that hydro power doesn't entail habitat destruction. It certainly does, among another things.

__________________

The process of the plants breaking down into CO2 and CH4, that is a natural process that is going to happen to them regardlessly. The amount of CO2 that is calculated doesn't take into account the new aquatic plant life that breaks down most of the CO2 and CH4 that is disolved in the water. Measurements are not actually found to be leaving the lakes and into the air on any degree that is close to the numbers calculated.

It is a stretch to go from "effected by" to "threatened by." Lack of numbers and backup, gross exaggeration (almost infinate...) and playing emotions (listing those that are effected and than relabeling it as threatened). The concerns are exagerated for whatever reasons, and still does not justify Nuclear as the only option.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides