If it's not too much trouble can you go over the possibilities for recycling nuclear waste?

the nuclear waste from Thorium is lower and the amount of uranium necessary to keep is fissionable is small. Not sure why others have not mentioned it.

Bob

Alternative energies are a great idea, but a very small piece of the "solution". Nuclear is the way to go, what is radioactive waste today may become useable with future technologies. But, in order to slow the warming of the planet, or cool the planet (I'm not sure what the goal is) we need to lower the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Windmills and Nuclear power plants will not actually LOWER the concentration. Nature has a solution for us though, photosynthesis. When atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than todays levels in the earth's past (because of massive volcanic outbursts), photosynthesis lowered them (over a long period of time). So we can squabble over nuclear energy all we want, unless we begin reforesting our planet (daunting task given our rate of expansion), nothing about our current trends in global climate will change. I'm an earth science major so I learned a thing or two about the planet and how it works. Although I'm no expert.

Since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear technology has come leaps and bounds. I suggest everybody who has their doubts in regards to nuclear energy to check out pebble bed reactors. This is just one of many innovations that has made nuclear energy much safer and efficient.

This isn't to say nuclear energy doesn't have its drawbacks. But it is of my opinion that the current cons outweigh the cons of a primarily nuclear based energy system within the United States. Ultimately it will come down to the voters -- So I suggest each and every one of us become better educated on the technology and push aside the stereotypes and irrational fears that have been instilled upon us due to tragedy.

It's easy to talk about the negatives of nuclear power, but the few alternatives that are available cannot nearly compete with the amount of energy produced by nuclear. Sure one can say hydro, solar, wind, etc., but they are expensive and don't produce nearly a fraction of what nuclear does. I worked an internship at a nuclear plant and was amazed at the safety and professional handling of the plant site.

Nuclear waste is a hot topic, but I do believe that technology and safety are more than sufficient to deal with this issue. Nuclear is definitely the way to go weather it be fission or one day fusion.

Nuclear was a good idea to earn some fast cash back in the days. Because it was cost effective, had no emmisions and had little to no needs. Nuclear always had an appeal but i strongly suggest you MOVE ONE and keep your focus on modern technologies instead of just wasting your time with OLD ones. America you need to learn again from the people who ones made America great!!! At this very moment many briliant upcoming people are going to rethink and reshape your country with new technology worth investing in. I would suggest pushing these ideas forward instead of going backwards...

Nuclear waste, blah blah blah.

When will someone mention how much energy use and waste comes from uranium mining???

How many restricted areas are there in the US due to mining tailings?

I am not an environmentalist; actually an anti-tree hugger...just an engineer that has a magical ability to realize that both sides are completely full of crap. Nuclear. Coal. They are both BS.

There is plenty of natural energy - wind, water and solar.

There are more sustainable energy, like wind energy, sun energy, geothermal energy, etc.
Cleaner and it's for FREE!

There's only one point of clarification I would offer in response to your last paragraph:
"President Obama hasn't said much about nuclear. It may well be that technology breakthroughs in solar, geothermal, wind or battery storage will mean that we don't need nuclear energy as a source of low-carbon power. But until those breakthroughs come along, shouldn't we keep the nuclear option open?"
It is not what President Obama has said about nuclear that is the problem, it is the direct action his administration has taken to give Harry Reid a political payback and gut what was supposed to be the country's long-term nuclear waste storage solution.

Let's not forget that unlike Chernobyl, Three Mile Island had NO FATALITIES. Environmentalist wanna-be's, and many who don't understand nuclear power love to harp on Three Mile Island without ever disclosing the facts that no one died as a result of it. If anything it was an eye-opener that lead to better practices and procedures for safety and for hiring new AO's. We should push nuclear power.

Nuclear proponents seem to forget the past, and have no idea about what the future needs. Remember, it takes several years, and billions of dollars to boost up the nuclear industry. And there's already been many disasters (still going on in some locations like Chernobyl), there is no place to put the waste, and there are other solutions. Many studies show that if renewables and energy efficiency get the incentives/subsidies they need, nuclear does not need to be a part of the answer. Nuclear is about as much of an answer as is storing carbon in the ground. Both are way too expensive, and are not permanent if even temporary solutions. Don't fall for it.

Nuclear power cannot solve our energy problems for several reasons, the most important of these being that if we went hog-wild building nuclear plants hither and thither we would very quickly run out of fissionable fuel! Stupid, stupid.

Centralized power generation and distribution is very vulnerable and inefficient anyway. The smart approach is
1.) Efficiency! We have barely begun to make our homes, transport, etc. as energy-efficient as they could be, which would then make it easier to
2.) Generate power on-site in appropriate ways. For example, if your house is built right, it needs no power input at all, not for heating space or water, not for lighting, and you would have extra power to sell back to the grid.
3.) We need energy to grow our food, too, so it's better to grow as much as possible as close by as possible using permaculture methods.

Big Nuke is as dumb as Big Coal, and for most of the same reasons.

I have a feeling Nuclear power will be around for a while. While I don't necessarily believe we should go BIG in the Nuclear department, i do think we need a few more plants. It will only alleviate stresses in the future oil market. Saying because natural gas and oil is cheaper now is not a good excuse. It may cost some money but you need to do it when were not in a oil crisis because then it is too late. The Oh, Please has it right, we have to look towards efficiency. Our homes are not built in a way that is advantageous enough. Why not use natural light with fiber optics running through your house. Better insulated homes, solar cells, or if you have never heard of it, check out the Stirling engine. These engines offer very high efficiencies. We need to change a lot of things. I think the future of energy will and should be diverse, we cannot be reliant on one source or expect to get our energy from one type of energy production ie oil or nuclear power or solar or geothermal or wind power. A mixing of them all is what we need. Im actually interning at a nuclear power plant this summer so perhaps my opinions may change...we will see.

-themannn check my blog for news and updates!

/Three Mile Island had NO FATALITIES./

Oh, yeah, TMI-2 was a great bargain. It cost about $700 million, operated barely three months, then took about 13 years (and a billion dollars) to clean up. That's the kind of effective, efficient energy production we're looking for.

With energy prices on the rise it is clear that we cannot continue to let coal and oil provide the overwhelming majority of our energy needs. Oil, coal, gas, and even uranium are running out, becoming too expensive, or are unable to handle future energy needs. Commercial light-water-reactors (LWR) are inefficient and only use about 0.7 percent of the available uranium (they can only consume rare U-235). However, breeder reactors can consume nearly all forms of uranium (in particular U-238 which constitutes 99 percent of natural uranium). Breeder reactors can also use Thorium (which I believe was mentioned above). Simply put the breeder can extend our limited uranium reserves from just a few decades to tens of thousands of years. The supply of fissionable material is a non-issue.