The lowest point wants to tell us how great nuclear is and how bad renewables are.

[Eko]

But there are problems.

[stopdiggin]

1. allowing ourselves to be talked out of nuclear

and, in essence, back IN to coal, gas, etc. - ranks as one of the largest boondoggles in modern science. So - by all means, let's keep talking about 'problems'. (with both renewables AND nuclear) Meanwhile - anybody up for some more fracking?

[Eko]

3. Your premise is faulty.

"allowing ourselves to be talked out of nuclear and, in essence, back IN to coal, gas, etc. - ranks as one of the largest boondoggles in modern science."
I'm of the whatever gets us away from using fossil fuels camp. I've no great problem against nuclear other than the cost and the ecological messes it creates. Personally I think we should be moving forward with the "wind, solar, water, nuclear' bag but some dont think that. Whats the problem with "wind, solar, water", it need fast ramping power plants for when its not productive, so far gas provides the most of that. Can Nuclear not provide that? Can future forms of Nuclear not provide that? Whats the problem with Nuclear? It costs a lot more and takes a lot more time and creates wastes that are far more problematic that even the lowest points biggest windmill solar. I'm certainly not talking anyone out of nuclear. Thing is, Nuclear can do that fast ramping already. The fact is that nuclear produces waste that is far more toxic than renewables, is very expensive and takes a lot of time to build. Using them as the backup rather than the gas plants and using more renewables that emit less toxic waste than either just makes sense.

[stopdiggin]

4. I'm of the camp that says the ecological costs of nuclear

are infinitesimal (near negligible) in comparison to the alternatives (which basically means fossil at this point in time) - and that cumulative and total footprint over the past 60 years by comparison - is enough to want to make a person break down and cry.

No beef with renewables here - other than the long standing issues of practicality and competitive output. But if people are willing to put the effort and capital into those directions - go for it!

[SarahD]

2. We are about to plunge ahead.

I think the PR blitz has convinced many, many people that nukes are the only way to combat climate change. It's a quick and easy escape route that we think will allow us to maintain our excessive life style. That's true but it's not going to be cheap.

[Igel]

6. Not quick, not easy.

They've been Gullivered by Lilliputian anti-nuke folk. To do anything requires reports, regulations, reports, more regulations, inspections, compliance checks .. Take a decade or more to get one commissioned, far, far less to actually build it--and it's if there aren't unexpected supply-chain issues or protests or injunctions judicial or regulatory.

[jaxexpat]

5. Cheap, dirty bombs for the next billion years or so.