In the interest of not derailing another topic, I've created this one to discuss this between Entroper and Myself:

I'm not blocking anything, but nuclear is neither the cleanest nor the most efficient energy source. If it were, I'd be all for subsidizing it.

I am just curious, based on current available technology (read: Not emerging technologies like fusion and hydrogen), what do you think is the best way to go about creating clean, efficient electricity to power our grid.
Obviously, I believe that nuclear fission is the best current option.  Its been 30 years (or more) since the last Nuclear Power plant was built in the US.  In those 30 years, there hasn't been a major nuclear disaster in any US plants or in any of the numurous European plants.  Additionally, waste disposal has also improved greatly, virtually eliminating the risk of waste contamination in the environment.
Nuclear power produces steam as a bi-product.  Thats the only "emission" into the environment.

(edited because I suck at HTML)

Nuclear Fission is the cleanest form of non-renewable energy. There are no major problems as regards waste disposal or safety. Crono you're right on the money.

I'm neither for nor against the building of fission reactors, but if you are for it you have to dismiss all of these points:

1. Risk of accident

Every project, no matter how well managed, has a safety risk. Eventually another nuclear disaster will occur, especially if a program to build lots of them at once is started.

2. Non-renewable

The supply of fissile substances will run out within a few hundred years at current consumption levels. If you are proposing a large scale rollout that would be cut drastically.

3. Security risk

It only takes one breach of security at one nuclear plant anywhere in the world at any time in the future and terrorists would be able to set off a radioactive bomb and make a large area of a city uninhabitable. Another risk is nuclear proliferation: if countries other than present are allowed to build civilian reactors they will be able to manufacture weapons quite easily.

4. Waste

The waste may seem safe now, underground, but in a million years it will still be dangerous and we cannot guarantee a minor tectonic event won't occur in that time. In addition, if future people discover the dumps, they may not know the hazard. This problem will only increase if more plants are built.

1. All power plants have a risk of accident. But having a risk of accident doesn't guarantee a disaster.

2. Same problem with every other method of power we produce now. Oil and Coal are gonna run out eventually. Why put all that coal soot currently in the earth into the air by burning, when we can get more energy with less emmissions.

3. Nuclear Power plants have among the best security in the world. Newer plants are designed to take an impact from a jet liner without failure.

4. Millions of years? Do you know anything about radioactive waste. In a million years, all nuclear waste material will have degenerated to their daughter elements (plutonium has a half life of 6000 years, give or take depending on the isotope)

MOAR nuclear plants is the solution to clean energy.

Hopefully the whole ITER thing goes well - 'cause fusion power would be even better!

Nuclear power plants are very expensive. Not for the energy companies, but for the taxpayer. Reason is, that the nuclear waste has to be put away safely for thousands or millions of years. Yes, millions. Plutonium-isotope 239 has a half-life of 24 thousand years, Uranium isotope 235 has a half-life of 700 million years and Uranium-isotope 238 of 4 billion years (that's the time the earth exists). And half life means not, that after this time the material is no longer a threat. It means after this time the threat is reduced to the half (half of the material has degenerated). If you double the time, the fourth part of it has degenerated. So, even if you want to pay for securing the meterial for thousand years, it's very expensive: You need some area to put it in and you have some guards, so that nobody steals the stuff and make something bad with it. Because it's easily possible that the company that produced the waste is away after 100 years (did any of these companies exists 100 years before) it's a part of the tasks of the country to secure the radioactive waste. And even Plutonium needs thihs treat for at least thousands of years. Nobody really can pay this. BUt the energy companies don't have to, because they externalized these costs to the taxpayer they say nuclear power is cheap.

Aren't Chinese building that huge permanent magnet wind turbine? I think it's called MagLev or something? I think that's as clean as energy can get today. Far more efficent than current windmill generators, uses less space, and reduces maitence costs.

Only downside is that it's expensive to build.

nuclear energy is absolutely the way to go. in my opinion, it outweighs all other risks.

the "what happens a million years from now" sounds like sarcasm. it's overwhelmingly likely the human race can't last a million years.

the only thing is that it's expensive. however, with a long-term view, the return is almost assured. the problem is that it's too long-term for most investors to be interested in, and which is why gov'ts need to step in. for western companies, gov'ts need to work with financial companies to figure out how best to strcrture financing since it doesn't appear they have much public backing.

also, fusion is not an "emergent" alternative... it's non-existent.

there's a big difference!

Did you really read my post? Nuclear energy produces long term costs. But it has no long term benefit, if you made from some uranium or plutonium energy - you have made your revenue and that's it. No long term revenue. And the resources are limited. The Uranium-reserves are limited to few decades at the current level of use. Plutonium is nearly not existant naturally, it is mostly created from Uranium in nuclear plants. So the uranium-resources also limit the plutonium-resources. In what regard that makes a long term investment?