Nuclear power...

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Enough to send solar to Apollo priority. A trillion for Iraq for what? And you look at me as though I lacked seriousness. Solar could already have been a done deal with intelligent will.

I agree that we as a nation bleed money like water through a seive, that doesnt solve our problems at hand.

Fiscal responsibility is another matter entirely.

 

[johnnobts]

Solar is still not viable. Nuclear is safe, and very efficient.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Enough to send solar to Apollo priority. A trillion for Iraq for what? And you look at me as though I lacked seriousness. Solar could already have been a done deal with intelligent will.

This is something I see alot where people are saying we need an "Apollo like" effort to develop some new technology. And of course it is true, with that type of funding and mandate ANY technology (nuclear, solar, whatever) will get considerably better. However, you cannot simply develop around the laws of physics, and the problem is that there are many fundamental problems with solar power that will severely limit its use. Also, the same amount of money spent on nuclear power could much more easily solve the problems. Heck, money isn't even the biggest issue, the real problem is political will. If politicians just approve Yucca mountain then we sill be able to store the waste for thousands of years safely and you biggest objection will be solved. Also, on the money aspect, that could be used to subsidies breeder reactors (the technology is already there, its simply the price keeping it down), as well as reprocessing (which is also political will). Also, concerning using the money wasted in Iraq, I'm pretty sure you will find that more or less nobody here actually supports the war in Iraq, so again I personally would love to have seen the money go towards energy independence. Even if it all went to solar, thats a much better use than spending a trillion dollars jsut to piss half the world off.

EDIT: as for solar, I am still not very sure that photovoltaic is the way to go, the complexity of this process and the costs involved (not to mention hazardous chemicals) are considerable. I like the idea of concentrated solar heating much better where mirrors focus the light onto a small point in order to generate heat for a much more conventional power plant process.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Enough to send solar to Apollo priority. A trillion for Iraq for what? And you look at me as though I lacked seriousness. Solar could already have been a done deal with intelligent will.

I agree that we as a nation bleed money like water through a seive, that doesnt solve our problems at hand.

Fiscal responsibility is another matter entirely.

We are as responsible with our waste as we are with our money.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Enough to send solar to Apollo priority. A trillion for Iraq for what? And you look at me as though I lacked seriousness. Solar could already have been a done deal with intelligent will.

This is something I see alot where people are saying we need an "Apollo like" effort to develop some new technology. And of course it is true, with that type of funding and mandate ANY technology (nuclear, solar, whatever) will get considerably better. However, you cannot simply develop around the laws of physics, and the problem is that there are many fundamental problems with solar power that will severely limit its use. Also, the same amount of money spent on nuclear power could much more easily solve the problems. Heck, money isn't even the biggest issue, the real problem is political will. If politicians just approve Yucca mountain then we sill be able to store the waste for thousands of years safely and you biggest objection will be solved. Also, on the money aspect, that could be used to subsidies breeder reactors (the technology is already there, its simply the price keeping it down), as well as reprocessing (which is also political will). Also, concerning using the money wasted in Iraq, I'm pretty sure you will find that more or less nobody here actually supports the war in Iraq, so again I personally would love to have seen the money go towards energy independence. Even if it all went to solar, thats a much better use than spending a trillion dollars jsut to piss half the world off.

EDIT: as for solar, I am still not very sure that photovoltaic is the way to go, the complexity of this process and the costs involved (not to mention hazardous chemicals) are considerable. I like the idea of concentrated solar heating much better where mirrors focus the light onto a small point in order to generate heat for a much more conventional power plant process.

You will be glad to know that solar panels are being developed with blueberries, the kind that grow and are good to eat. Lots of work going on in multiple directions in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Big fab facilities are being built to roll off thin film flexible materials endlessly. Work goes on to incorporate such ideas into the external building materials like roofing and siding tiles themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Solar is still not viable. Nuclear is safe, and very efficient.

Hehe. Nuclear is not viable nor is it safe. It is also not as efficient as solar because of transmission loss. Plastic and dye are cheaper than uranium and don't kill people. Dismantling a reactor, and they will all have to be dismantled, is as or more expensive than to build then. There are dangers in transporting nuclear waste and unknown hazards that could affect long term storage. Nuclear is Russian Roulette. It's a violation of common sense.

Everything about nuclear is perfect except the waste has never been properly stored. It's been around 60 years and nothing. Still above ground waiting for some sort of disaster to spread it everywhere. Chernobyl was perfectly safe. You think anybody would build a reactor that's not. It's crazy to imagine that tomorrow will be materially different than today where human nature is concerned. Humans evolved to sh!t and move on. Only trouble is that now we are everywhere and everything is covered with our sh!t. At a minimum try not to sh!t on your children.

 

[Acanthus]

How the hell can you call 12000 reactor years of operation unsafe?

The only commercial reactor to ever have a serious problem was a russian piece of junk built out of basically tinkertoys and run by people who previously DIDNT EVEN WORK IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

Whatever moonbeam, you are the epitomy of what pisses me off about democracy, even irrational people get a say.

Lets use coal plants that spew 4x as much radiation directly into the air instead of those unsafe nuke plants.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Solar is still not viable. Nuclear is safe, and very efficient.

Hehe. Nuclear is not viable nor is it safe. It is also not as efficient as solar because of transmission loss. Plastic and dye are cheaper than uranium and don't kill people. Dismantling a reactor, and they will all have to be dismantled, is as or more expensive than to build then. There are dangers in transporting nuclear waste and unknown hazards that could affect long term storage. Nuclear is Russian Roulette. It's a violation of common sense.

Everything about nuclear is perfect except the waste has never been properly stored. It's been around 60 years and nothing. Still above ground waiting for some sort of disaster to spread it everywhere. Chernobyl was perfectly safe. You think anybody would build a reactor that's not. It's crazy to imagine that tomorrow will be materially different than today where human nature is concerned. Humans evolved to sh!t and move on. Only trouble is that now we are everywhere and everything is covered with our sh!t. At a minimum try not to sh!t on your children.

Wow. Transmission loss, who says the transmission lines for solar plants are more efficient than the transmission lines coming from a Nuclear plant?

Then the other bolded points you just discredit everything you say, first nuclear was not viable nor safe, then you said nuclear power is perfect except the by product. Well take a hint, the byproduct would be taken care of if our leaders in Washington had any desire to do it. You say i'm screwing my children, i'm 25 if anything my fathers generation is screwing me.

 

[Icepick]

We need more nuclear power plants in the U.S.

It's time to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. One way to do that is to make hybrid cars and maybe even fully electric cars available to the public at a mainstream price. Think that alone will help cut down on fossil fuel emissions? Think again. The electricity used to charge up your electric car's battery has to come from some place. Most of the time, that's from coal burning power plants. I think the first step to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels - sourced from both foreign and domestic areas - is the proliferation of nuclear power plants.

The next big issue to tackle, of course, is where and how to store the waste from the power plant.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
How the hell can you call 12000 reactor years of operation unsafe?

The only commercial reactor to ever have a serious problem was a russian piece of junk built out of basically tinkertoys and run by people who previously DIDNT EVEN WORK IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

Whatever moonbeam, you are the epitomy of what pisses me off about democracy, even irrational people get a say.

Lets use coal plants that spew 4x as much radiation directly into the air instead of those unsafe nuke plants.

How can you call this 12000 foot fall out of the plane unsafe Moonbeam. Look here comes the ground.

You have a different idea about what is serious than I. I would call Three Mile Island serious as well as other close calls.

If you think I am irrational then take a look at the stupidity of your next comment, that if we don't want nuclear we keep burning coal. It's sort of like a child saying, I'm taking my ball and going home.

It's a constant problem with you intellectually trained and emotionally underdeveloped engineers. You will run the whole of humanity off a cliff chasing fairies and call us uncooperative twits who should have no say. I think of future generations in my way and you dream on. I see where your waste is stored waiting for disaster and I know who you really are, self deceiving liars and con artists playing with toys. You are every bit the nut-case you think I am. You aren't even mature enough not to see accept that fools like me should have a right to shut you down. You, Sir, are the religious fanatic. It's not me who thinks you shouldn't have a vote. Take a good hard look at what you have shown about yourself. You are in a pretty sad state.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Solar is still not viable. Nuclear is safe, and very efficient.

Hehe. Nuclear is not viable nor is it safe. It is also not as efficient as solar because of transmission loss. Plastic and dye are cheaper than uranium and don't kill people. Dismantling a reactor, and they will all have to be dismantled, is as or more expensive than to build then. There are dangers in transporting nuclear waste and unknown hazards that could affect long term storage. Nuclear is Russian Roulette. It's a violation of common sense.

Everything about nuclear is perfect except the waste has never been properly stored. It's been around 60 years and nothing. Still above ground waiting for some sort of disaster to spread it everywhere. Chernobyl was perfectly safe. You think anybody would build a reactor that's not. It's crazy to imagine that tomorrow will be materially different than today where human nature is concerned. Humans evolved to sh!t and move on. Only trouble is that now we are everywhere and everything is covered with our sh!t. At a minimum try not to sh!t on your children.

Wow. Transmission loss, who says the transmission lines for solar plants are more efficient than the transmission lines coming from a Nuclear plant?

Then the other bolded points you just discredit everything you say, first nuclear was not viable nor safe, then you said nuclear power is perfect except the by product. Well take a hint, the byproduct would be taken care of if our leaders in Washington had any desire to do it. You say i'm screwing my children, i'm 25 if anything my fathers generation is screwing me.

What are the transmission losses from solar panels on your roof? Good grief.

I said Nuclear was unsafe because nobjohns waltzes in and boldly and without a whiff of evidence announces it's safe. It's my favorite argument. You say a and I say not a. I am just as right based on the facts presented. And as far as Washington not taking action, how many times do I have to say a moron could have seen that coming a million miles away. I don't want radioactive materials stored in my yard and neither does any other American. And as long as Nevada's electoral vote matters to either party it won't be going there. You blame a dog for snarling when you put him in a corner when you were the fool who did so. The opposition to people to toxins that last thousands of years is real. Get it, REAL. Stupid you wants to create more waste that nobody wants while you cry about what is REAL. You are the REAL fool. And what you will do, of course, is not stop your stupid journey, but try to force others to eat what you yourself, or your family and neighbors would never accept, to send your waste to somebody else's back yard. This is how you show you are a Christian, by doing to others what you know they won't be able to do to you.

No, to call your kind pigs is very polite.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Solar is still not viable. Nuclear is safe, and very efficient.

Hehe. Nuclear is not viable nor is it safe. It is also not as efficient as solar because of transmission loss. Plastic and dye are cheaper than uranium and don't kill people. Dismantling a reactor, and they will all have to be dismantled, is as or more expensive than to build then. There are dangers in transporting nuclear waste and unknown hazards that could affect long term storage. Nuclear is Russian Roulette. It's a violation of common sense.

Everything about nuclear is perfect except the waste has never been properly stored. It's been around 60 years and nothing. Still above ground waiting for some sort of disaster to spread it everywhere. Chernobyl was perfectly safe. You think anybody would build a reactor that's not. It's crazy to imagine that tomorrow will be materially different than today where human nature is concerned. Humans evolved to sh!t and move on. Only trouble is that now we are everywhere and everything is covered with our sh!t. At a minimum try not to sh!t on your children.

Wow. Transmission loss, who says the transmission lines for solar plants are more efficient than the transmission lines coming from a Nuclear plant?

Then the other bolded points you just discredit everything you say, first nuclear was not viable nor safe, then you said nuclear power is perfect except the by product. Well take a hint, the byproduct would be taken care of if our leaders in Washington had any desire to do it. You say i'm screwing my children, i'm 25 if anything my fathers generation is screwing me.

What are the transmission losses from solar panels on your roof? Good grief.

I said Nuclear was unsafe because nobjohns waltzes in and boldly and without a whiff of evidence announces it's safe. It's my favorite argument. You say a and I say not a. I am just as right based on the facts presented. And as far as Washington not taking action, how many times do I have to say a moron could have seen that coming a million miles away. I don't want radioactive materials stored in my yard and neither does any other American. And as long as Nevada's electoral vote matters to either party it won't be going there. You blame a dog for snarling when you put him in a corner when you were the fool who did so. The opposition to people to toxins that last thousands of years is real. Get it, REAL. Stupid you wants to create more waste that nobody wants while you cry about what is REAL. You are the REAL fool. And what you will do, of course, is not stop your stupid journey, but try to force others to eat what you yourself, or your family and neighbors would never accept, to send your waste to somebody else's back yard. This is how you show you are a Christian, by doing to others what you know they won't be able to do to you.

No, to call your kind pigs is very polite.

Woooo there, no where in this thread has religion been brought up until you started accusing people of being religious zealots, you are ****** in the head bud. I'm not even going to start a religious debate with any about nuclear power so don't even go there, in fact, i think you should be banned for your complete lack of ability to carry on a polite debate without pulling out insults to anyone and anything just because you don't agree with them.

And i'm not paying 50K to put solar on my roof, the returns are no where worth it, now if you pay the 50K then sure why not. Solar panals are so expensive at this point that your point does not apply to the REAL world that you speak of. The REAL world needs energy quickly, solar will take 10 more years to become efficient then you have to store the energy.

Good grief yourself.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You have a different idea about what is serious than I. I would call Three Mile Island serious as well as other close calls.

If you think I am irrational then take a look at the stupidity of your next comment, that if we don't want nuclear we keep burning coal. It's sort of like a child saying, I'm taking my ball and going home.

Three Mile Island is actually an excellent argument for the safety of nuclear plants in this US showing that even when things when catastrophically wrong with an older plant, there were no actual public health consequences. You're simply ignoring the facts on this and why Chernobyl shouldn't apply to the arguments on whether new nuclear power plants should be built today.

The reality is we ARE building coal power plants right now in many cases because solar is extremely expensive and wind really can only represent so much of the power grid among other things. In case there is any confusion, we have a limited supply of natural gas and its tending to get increasingly expensive. By blocking nuclear power plants you are effectively lobbying for more coal power plants to be built whether you like it or not.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: k1pp3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Solar is still not viable. Nuclear is safe, and very efficient.

Hehe. Nuclear is not viable nor is it safe. It is also not as efficient as solar because of transmission loss. Plastic and dye are cheaper than uranium and don't kill people. Dismantling a reactor, and they will all have to be dismantled, is as or more expensive than to build then. There are dangers in transporting nuclear waste and unknown hazards that could affect long term storage. Nuclear is Russian Roulette. It's a violation of common sense.

Everything about nuclear is perfect except the waste has never been properly stored. It's been around 60 years and nothing. Still above ground waiting for some sort of disaster to spread it everywhere. Chernobyl was perfectly safe. You think anybody would build a reactor that's not. It's crazy to imagine that tomorrow will be materially different than today where human nature is concerned. Humans evolved to sh!t and move on. Only trouble is that now we are everywhere and everything is covered with our sh!t. At a minimum try not to sh!t on your children.

Wow. Transmission loss, who says the transmission lines for solar plants are more efficient than the transmission lines coming from a Nuclear plant?

Then the other bolded points you just discredit everything you say, first nuclear was not viable nor safe, then you said nuclear power is perfect except the by product. Well take a hint, the byproduct would be taken care of if our leaders in Washington had any desire to do it. You say i'm screwing my children, i'm 25 if anything my fathers generation is screwing me.

What are the transmission losses from solar panels on your roof? Good grief.

I said Nuclear was unsafe because nobjohns waltzes in and boldly and without a whiff of evidence announces it's safe. It's my favorite argument. You say a and I say not a. I am just as right based on the facts presented. And as far as Washington not taking action, how many times do I have to say a moron could have seen that coming a million miles away. I don't want radioactive materials stored in my yard and neither does any other American. And as long as Nevada's electoral vote matters to either party it won't be going there. You blame a dog for snarling when you put him in a corner when you were the fool who did so. The opposition to people to toxins that last thousands of years is real. Get it, REAL. Stupid you wants to create more waste that nobody wants while you cry about what is REAL. You are the REAL fool. And what you will do, of course, is not stop your stupid journey, but try to force others to eat what you yourself, or your family and neighbors would never accept, to send your waste to somebody else's back yard. This is how you show you are a Christian, by doing to others what you know they won't be able to do to you.

No, to call your kind pigs is very polite.

Woooo there, no where in this thread has religion been brought up until you started accusing people of being religious zealots, you are ****** in the head bud. I'm not even going to start a religious debate with any about nuclear power so don't even go there, in fact, i think you should be banned for your complete lack of ability to carry on a polite debate without pulling out insults to anyone and anything just because you don't agree with them.

And i'm not paying 50K to put solar on my roof, the returns are no where worth it, now if you pay the 50K then sure why not. Solar panals are so expensive at this point that your point does not apply to the REAL world that you speak of. The REAL world needs energy quickly, solar will take 10 more years to become efficient then you have to store the energy.

Good grief yourself.

Energy efficiencies that are ready today can take care of the growth in power needs till solar comes on line. It is all a matter of will and whose will. Nuclear will lead to a filthy future and solar to one that is clean. The sane path is solar, conservation, and government investment, Apollo style, in research. You need to reread the thread if you think I wasn't called a fanatic. Hehe! The payback time for solar in Calif, I think, is six years. Then your energy if free. That's with the expensive stuff coming today, not what will be available, without government stimulus, in 2 years.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The payback time for solar in Calif, I think, is six years. Then your energy if free. That's with the expensive stuff coming today, not what will be available, without government stimulus, in 2 years.

You should actually bother to do research instead of simply thinking it.

Even with significant subsidies in place its actually about 16 years.

CIBC estimates that the cost to install a system in California is about $8.50 per watt. But after a $2.20 per watt state rebate and a $2,000 federal tax credit the net cost drops to $5.77 a watt.

This means that buying a solar system can yield homeowners a 6% return on their investment. It would take about 16 years to pay the initial investment, though the payback period can vary depending on peak electricity rates in the region, the report's authors said in an interview. If homeowners are generating power during peak daytime demand when electricity rates are typically the highest, they will save more money.

http://realestate.msn.com/Improve/Article_mw.aspx?cp-documentid=3609262&GT1=9223

Given the stock market tends to return an average of around 10% over time, this means its not really a sensible investment from a purely financial point of view. A realistic discussion of the actual issues involved at the moment is helpful.

 

[k1pp3r]

Whats the average electric bill in Cali, in GA 2 room apartment is about $50 a month. The thing is, 90% of the population either will not or can not plop down the investment for a solar system on their room, it would be nice, but its not realistic.

Oh by the way, yes you called Acanthus a religious fanatic, then you told me that i am proving that i am Christian, when in fact you don't know crap about me.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Whats the average electric bill in Cali, in GA 2 room apartment is about $50 a month. The thing is, 90% of the population either will not or can not plop down the investment for a solar system on their room, it would be nice, but its not realistic.

Oh by the way, yes you called Acanthus a religious fanatic, then you told me that i am proving that i am Christian, when in fact you don't know crap about me.

No its alright man, moonbeam has us.

Everyone lives in california where unionized cashiers at grocery stores make $16/hr

And everyone knows that the california electricity market is certainly the shining beacon we should be using for examples.

My NUCLEAR BASED electricity bills generation fees: $0.0286 kw/h last month.

Whats yours moonbeam?

I know i know, i am killing my children to save a buck, what with the radiation and all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Zero payback time. Note his point that the problem is one of ignorance.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Zero payback time. Note his point that the problem is one of ignorance.

Indeed, it still is. He gives no numbers or real details whatsoever supporting his vague claims, and the reality is that in Colorado where 5% of the power coming from solar energy is mandated by 2015 it is leading to increased electricity costs to reach this. (Note the author appears to be a CEO for a company involved with solar power plant production.) Solar simply isn't all that ready yet, and things get allot more problematic if it becomes a significant portion of the energy grid and you have to worry about the consequences of clouds and night with your energy policy.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Zero payback time. Note his point that the problem is one of ignorance.

Indeed, it still is. He gives no numbers or real details whatsoever supporting his vague claims, and the reality is that in Colorado where 5% of solar energy is mandated by 2015 it is leading to increased electricity costs to reach this. (Note the author appears to be a CEO for a company involved with solar power plant production.) Solar simply isn't all that ready yet, and things get allot more problematic if it becomes a significant portion of the energy grid and you have to worry about the consequences of clouds and night with your energy policy.

ICARUS from 007 will save the day!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Life and sanity call for solar, not for nuclear waste that kills for thousands of years. Get off your can't do ass and go with the force.

 

[BrownTown]

See, the problem with you Moonbeam is that you clearly are not understanding what people here are actually supporting. Everyone here would choose solar power if it actually did half the cr@p you stuff you think it can, the problem is that you will not accept the fact that this is not reality. In fact it isn't even even close, solar isn't just a little more expensive or something like that, its an order of magnitude more expensive. Even 100% efficient solar panels would be much more expensive than nuclear power, not to mention they would require fossil fuel backup for when the sun don't shine, and huge areas of land. People don't support nuclear because they think it is perfect, they support it because its the best REAL power source there is.

 

[iskim86]

damn i didn't even know china had that kind of technology to build stuff like this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
See, the problem with you Moonbeam is that you clearly are not understanding what people here are actually supporting. Everyone here would choose solar power if it actually did half the cr@p you stuff you think it can, the problem is that you will not accept the fact that this is not reality. In fact it isn't even even close, solar isn't just a little more expensive or something like that, its an order of magnitude more expensive. Even 100% efficient solar panels would be much more expensive than nuclear power, not to mention they would require fossil fuel backup for when the sun don't shine, and huge areas of land. People don't support nuclear because they think it is perfect, they support it because its the best REAL power source there is.

They support it out of ignorance and arrogance. You do not create toxins that last thousands of years because you are in a hurry today. You have no right to leave that kind of sh!t behind. You also fail to address the fact that the waste we have made has never been cleaned up. You talk about technical impracticalities as if the ones on your end were not much worse. You can not see thousands of years in the future or what will become of all the waste we produce. It's a disaster waiting to happen now, no need to make it worse. The wisdom of ordinary people will stop you I hope. You are a nuclear engineer, please don't pretend to be rational. You have money riding on this issue and career opportunities. If the government subsidized solar like they do nuclear we would long ago have been on our way. 10 mi by 10 mi is what we need for solar if i remember correctly.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BrownTown
See, the problem with you Moonbeam is that you clearly are not understanding what people here are actually supporting. Everyone here would choose solar power if it actually did half the cr@p you stuff you think it can, the problem is that you will not accept the fact that this is not reality. In fact it isn't even even close, solar isn't just a little more expensive or something like that, its an order of magnitude more expensive. Even 100% efficient solar panels would be much more expensive than nuclear power, not to mention they would require fossil fuel backup for when the sun don't shine, and huge areas of land. People don't support nuclear because they think it is perfect, they support it because its the best REAL power source there is.

They support it out of ignorance and arrogance. You do not create toxins that last thousands of years because you are in a hurry today. You have no right to leave that kind of sh!t behind. You also fail to address the fact that the waste we have made has never been cleaned up. You talk about technical impracticalities as if the ones on your end were not much worse. You can not see thousands of years in the future or what will become of all the waste we produce. It's a disaster waiting to happen now, no need to make it worse. The wisdom of ordinary people will stop you I hope. You are a nuclear engineer, please don't pretend to be rational. You have money riding on this issue and career opportunities. If the government subsidized solar like they do nuclear we would long ago have been on our way. 10 mi by 10 mi is what we need for solar if i remember correctly.

You see what you have put above is what I attribute to you.

The waste we've made today CAN be cleaned up. Much of it can be re-used as fuel leaving waste that is only dangerous for a few hundred years instead of thousands. Fears such as yours is what keeps us on the path of ever rising CO2 emissions.

In your ignorance and fear you'd condem us to dump 3.5 metric tons of CO2 and other hazardous wastes into the air to save ONE gram of nuclear waste.

While I respect your opinion on numerous other issues on this one it is YOU who doesn't realize how to clean up the sty we live in.