Sardauk -

Sorry bud, but you've been ignoring the whole argument about the poor suffering. Please go back and read what we've been saying (which is something you haven't done - actually reading up on the discussion).

The poor will suffer because of the laws that are going into place that are forcing clean/rewnewables. Renewable energy costs more than what is currently available. By forcing energy companies to use renewables, or pay a higher amount of money for carbon indulgences, energy companies will raise prices to compensate. Since everyone pays energy bills - poor and rich alike - it will effect everyone, especially the poor. Due to the laws of the State of Ohio, I am part of an energy co-op. I own part of the local power company. They've already sent out info to every person stating that if the laws pass, we WILL pay $350/yr more due to carbon re-structuring. This is the SAME company that has spent billions of dollars reducing their carbon/sulfur/ect output for the past few years. And when they want to build new, clean, nuclear power plants, the government blocks them from building them.

Not only all of that, but what kind of renewable power plant are we going to build in Ohio? Ohio has the most cloudy days of any state in America, meaning solar energy is near-useless, and wind energy would require us to destroy forests to find a place to plant the massive farms which may not get a lot of wind because, again, we're in Ohio.

nuninhuh -

Problem with Nuclear power is that our government has hated it and barred the construction of the plants for decades now. George W Bush has been the only president in recent years to push forward nuclear power plants. Americans and power companies want clean-burning nuclear plants. Problem is, the EPA and the left-wingers have shut down new nuclear power plant construction.

bah is your lose, you have so much desert to place them safely.

The truth about Nuclear power is that it can be some of the safest and cleanest power sources in the world but propaganda based on 1950s/1960s American/Russian styled nuclear power plants ... In part because Canadians didn't have the heavy industry, did not have the enrichment facilities, and were not looking for military applications of nuclear power, the Canadian designed Candu reactor is a much larger design which can use a much lower grade of fuel and is (over all) far safer than many other reactor designs.

The real problem with Nuclear power is the time it takes to construct the facilities, and the resistance there is to any facilities being constructed ... If it takes 15 to 25 years to build a nuclear plant and you need 1 plant per 100,000 people to replace our dependance on fossil fuels how many nuclear plants should be under construction today to no longer need fossil fuels by 2030?

What? Half a million years isn't a problem?

We got plenty of room in Australia, and you better believe its prime real estate (deserts), but screw dealing with a problem for that amount of time. A little bit of cash from the french, chinese or american governments simply won't cover 500,000 years while waiting for rods/equiptment to "cool" down.

Oh and go and look at some of the waste that France and Japan have to deal with. Theres a lot of shit that somebody (not you, a developed modern Western country) is going to deal with.

I didn't understand the question, but it's ok. I can't participate in this discution cause i'm not well informed and i am not that interested in the solutions for this (temporary or not) "global warming".

And i say again, i just exposed my knwolegdements about the issue and should have left when the discution started to go outside my area of study.

sorry...

You really need to read less propaganda and learn more about the science ...

The danger posed by nuclear waste essentially comes from enriching the material to a very high level (producing very radioactive materials) which then need to be disposed of. If you're using a very low grade material there is very little danger from the waste material produced. If you took the waste from a Candu reactor which was running on natural uranium, and mixed the waste material at 1 part per 100 parts of concrete you could store this safely (pretty much) anywhere as long as people didn't decide to build houses out of it.

"pretty much"

So u got a source there? Pretty sure everyone knows 1/2 million yrs is how long it takes. Yes, there are better processes today which use rods longer and therefore make them less toxic but that is not the usual reactor.

One day, we will have a space lift (might be 500 years down the road), and then no more waiste. So, it's not a half a million year problem.