Nuclear energy relies on fuel, yes. It's also quite abundant and provides massive quantities of energy cheaply. Solar just isn't realistic as a primary supplier. I predict it will largely be hydro and nuclear, supplemented by geothermal and solar (we will also continue to use traditional fossil fuels extracted with nuclear energy from oil and tar sands and oil shale.

But there's really no getting around Nuclear. People just need to buck up, shut up, and let it happen. It's necessary and a good thing.


Michael never listens when anyone talks. The waste issue has been addressed repeatedly.

1. It's unnecessary to have a perfect 100% safe system for storage. That's unrealistic. The current energy providers aren't 100% safe, and we have a piss-poor record for safety compared to nuclear. Nuclear power generation has one of the safest operational and transportation records of any major energy supplier.

2. Fuel can be reprocessed (currently not done) to eliminate 99% of problem radioactive waste.

3. Pebble Bed Reactors can limit the other concerns people have regarding plant safety.


Mike needs to cool down with the conspiracy theory and face reality: we need nuclear power, and large amounts of it. Fighting it is only hurting your country and unpatriotic. The tree hugging anti-nuclear lobby has allied with the monopoly conspiracy nuts to ruin America's necessary energy plan, despite nuclear being one of the most green energy sources available. Most people opposed to it are simply uninformed and have been propagandized by the media or have some irrational fear of it.

Show me practical technology that can provide the abundance of nuclear energy safely and cleanly as nuclear power can. It doesn't exist. Yucca mountain being "dangerous" isn't a valid argument against nuclear power, especially given we already use coal for vast amounts of energy and it's far more dangerous.

How about this, Mankind's current consumption of energy is 15 TW (thats for everything), the energy that falls on the Earth from solar is 86,000 TW, that's 5,733 times more energy than we currently use, plus there is all the solar energy that blows past the earth. Nuclear can't come close to those numbers.

Right now there are 439 nuclear power planets in the world. The US would need that many just to have all of our electricity to come from nuclear, and that is not for all our energy needs, only electricity. For all our energy needs we would need 2,900 power plants (if each averaged at 1,100 MW), and the world would need another 13,200 nuclear power plants to do that. How close are we really at putting up that many power plants?

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

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

We do need to produce a great deal of nuke plants. At least 400. That's the point. We aren't close, because no one wants to do it, no one wants to live near them, and green nutters have put all kinds of silly regulations in place that make the plants take long to make and costly for the initial start up.

However, we are no where near the level of solar infrastructure or technology to provide this saving grace the greens say it will be.

A lot of energy falls on the Earth from the sun. That isn't the problem. Harvesting and storing and using it is. It's just not very practical. It's very limited. Energy that can't be effectively harvested is useless. No matter how much their is.

we will never have enough nuclear if some people continue to lie about and block it's progress. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. They deliberately inhibit construction, mis-educate people, and then show how we can't use it and don't have enough to provide for what we need.

We are getting a very late start, largely because of the environmentalists and public fear. That's why we need to cut back on the silly red tape, ignore the population, and start a mass nuclear public works plan.

Where would we put them? Mexico and Canada?

__________________

Where would we put what?

If we add 400 nuclear plants (to our already 100), that would only take care of about 17.25% of our total energy needs.

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

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

Most of our power comes from coal, I think, no? It's not going to be a few plants. No one said that. It will require many, just as we have many coal plants too. It's still a better deal than trying to rely on grossly inefficient, costly, unreliable solar power. The future will also coincide with decreased energy consumption. It will just need to post-fossil. Nuclear will help and eventually be a dominant energy source. It's not going to magic the problem away soon. It takes many plants to do that.

We consume way too much as it is.



Edit: right now, there are 103 reactors and they provide roughly 20% of the total USA electricity.

A benefit of nuclear power is that it's incredibly reliable and stable. Wind and Solar are not. They fluctuate depending on weather conditions. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute: "nuclear energy is a secure energy source that the nation can depend on. Nuclear energy is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations, or dependence on foreign suppliers. In fact, nuclear energy is produced by a strong domestic and international industry, with extensive fuel supply sources.

Nuclear power plants produce electricity uninterrupted for extended periods—for as long as 24 months. They help supply the necessary level of “baseload” electricity for the electricity transmission network, or “grid," to operate. Nuclear power plants are a key element in the stability of our country's electrical grid."

It provides cheap, long-term consistency while using less land than an equivalent solar farm.

The amount that practically comes from the renewable sources is so pathetically small because it's just not nearly as practical.

Coal provides most of our electricity, not power (only 1/7 of our power is electric). You make claims like "grossly inefficient, costly, unreliable solar power" but provide nothing to back up your colorful adjectives. I can also sprinkle in adjectives to make Nuclear look ugly, but I won't since it is poor debate form.

Solar is 15% effiecent and growing at a rate of 5.6% (based on a 50 year average), and is dropping in price by 8.3% annually (also based on a 50 year average). Those are the numbers and Nuclear doesn't come close to that. But as seeing as there are thousands of americans that use their own solar to take them off the grid completely and even to sell electricity back to electric companies for money, I'd have to say that it is very reliable.

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

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