Pro, Nuclear

you forgot to add the most abundantly used renewable energy source to your list Gravitational Energy (hydroelectric).  90% of the electricity in my province is generated via this source.

nuclear is not renewable.  Last I heard we have about a 150 years of currently economically viable fuel resources at current usage rates.  There remains an estimated 1000 years worth of uranium in seawater and an estimated 500 years land based that are not currently economically viable. Though it is not renewable it is the lesser of two evils.

How could anyone be anti-renewable energy? I am completely for it, BUT only when it becomes economically feasible. Right now most renewable energy forms are simply not efficient/powerful enough. However I am for putting resources into researching how to make renewable energies more economically viable.

Pro. No one technology over the other as a combination of all will be needed. However I must say that whilst I can see the advantages of nuclear power (hell my country does have the most uranium in the world) I would be very hesitant to apply that technology anywhere.

 I dunno if I'd label myself as really anti, but there are reasons u could lean towards an anti stand against renewable energy.

* it costs a lot of money that should be used for something else

* promoting renewable energy feeds the global warming mith

* wind turbine parks look disgusting

i feel the same way on that point.  i really have trouble supporting even some of the reasonable environmental policies for the fact that the focus is global warming.

Nuclear power is dangerous??? This is news to me. Nuclear fission incidents are extremely rare and the devastation is often over-sensationalised. Besides, nuclear fusion is exteremly safe and the only output is Helium I believe. That is the future of nuclear power and it how future energy may work.

Now getting back to the topic...

My Dad is head of Research and Development for one of the UKs largest construction companies. He has to know about renewable energy. He reckons that thundreds of solutions exist and some of the good ones don't publised as much which is a shame. But there are some exciting ones about. There is a green individual generator for houses that is pretty cool.

Personally I would go for solar towers, there is a lot of fuss right ow about them and rightly so. Each solar tower can power 10,000 homes and the terrain they are built on (typically desert) is waste land, which is good. The idea is to place an array of mirrors around a tower and reflect the light to a point at the top of the tower where water is heated and the resulting steam drives a turbine.

Also, in Focus (British science journal) this month it did mention this technology and also mentioned large wind turbines that in theory could produce masses of energy. basically they are ten times the size of normal ones and sit out at sea.

Well I think the whole point is we will switch over when we reach a point where it doesn't cost a lot of money.  Right now it doesn't make any economic sense, all we can do is continue investing in research.  And hopefully the man-made global warming myth will be gone soon!

I am very pro nuclear. I am probably a little biased though as I am getting a minor in nuclear engineering. Wind is also good but only to an extent as too many turbines will change the jet stream.