I do think, however, that I’ve gone to some length in these comments to fairly address issues people have raised. Obviously, I can’t pretend to have answers for everything, but I think I’ve shown critical thinking here… at least a level that amounts to critical thinking in the context of blog comments.

As for your objections to two words I used, I wasn’t saying that those who call for prudent planning are archaic thinkers or misguided environmentalists, what I did say is that there’s a certain mindset that those two groups have done much to foster. I was addressing a mindset, not the objectors here.

And finally, I’m not trying to fear-monger when I say there’s little time to wait, that’s just a fact. I’m sorry if you see it as the former, but fear-mongering connotes that there is an intent to strike fear; my intent is little more than placing events in context. If you think my assessment of timing is inaccurate, please, put forth an argument, but please do not blindly accuse me of fear mongering.

Nuclear energy can produce more than enough energy to meet our needs. As for the waste, we could actually reprocess (ie. recycle) the same fuel rods instead of storing them as waste.

There’s an argument to be made for looking at nuclear, but you’re not doing much for it — rather, you’re assembling a collection of hack attacks.

The fact is that the internal combustion engine and petroleum are kind of a technological dead-end. It was pretty smart for the industrial revolution and 1800-1900’s. It killed other technologies and research for a long while, but now is coming to seemingly an end of its useful life.

The idea of distributive power is a strong one. A local manufacturer, CPG, American jobs even, sells a bunch of products for this. China, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries see it as a smart way to bring electricity to rural areas without the long transmission lines and other infrastructure. These power plants then use local source; oil, coal, wood whatever to run the generators. Not exactly carbon friendly but neither is huge coal firing plants in the hinterlands with lots of transmission lines.

There may be no emissions from the actual power-making proces, but nuclear power is not emission free.

“The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.

It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.

Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

“The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.

It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.

Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

“The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.

It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.

Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

Nuclear’s a mature technology (just look at Europe), storage isn’t a huge problem anymore (rods can be recycled, they are only significantly radioactive for a bit over 100 years, on-site storage has actually worked, and newer technologies like carbon-balls allow for nuclear fuel that can be stored anywhere after it cools), the cost is almost on par with coal (again, long-term), company’s know how to do this (both American and otherwise), security’s not a huge problem, and it’s zero emissions. But most of all: IT’S READY TO GO NOW. The only thing holding it back is an unusual and archaic mindset promulgated in America by 3-mile island and misguided environmentalists.

Again, we need better technologies and a wide assortment of them to address climate change and changing energy needs; but for right now, nuclear is a pretty damn good hold over. And we don’t have time to wait.

I know I already posted it, but the Wired article does a good job with all of this:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html
There are tons more articles that say the same thing in more and less complex terms, but the above is recent and accessible.

Do we go with centralized, big plants, or create distributed networks for creation and transmission of energy?

Wind, solar, and smaller biomass/waste plants at manufacturing plants that encourage companies to monetarize waste streams by selling excess generation or steam heat from their plants can add up — reducing the need for big plants. And like the distributed network Baran proposed for the ARPAnet, there’s no one central point for disrupting energy production and distribution. Same principle.

So all we have to do is liquidate the plaintiff’s bar and our energy troubles are solved.

But right now we can’t do that, and rockets aren’t an option.
Boom = very, very VERY bad.

Wind, conservation, efficiency, other renewables etc. can all play a part but for baseload power at the levels needed to meet demand from not to 2030, your real options are clean coal or nuclear (or a combination).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_disaster

I think you can fill in the blanks.

Send it on a 4 year journey to Sun. Whatever.

The other point I would add is that security is going to be an especial concern around nuclear power plants.

Of course, the damned radioactivity is going to last a lot longer than you do, so maybe that wouldn’t really be fair to your great-great-great-great grandchildren.

Or of course we could leave the pernicious radioactivity behind when you or your progeny sell the house, as long as you put it down on one of those full-disclosure statements that you leave on the table at the open house.

““Taxpayers should not be required to finance billions in risky loan guarantees,” states a letter that [Taxpayers for Common Sense], the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste jointly sent to Congress last week.”

http://thehill.com/business — lobby/nuclear-advocates-try-to-clear-obstacles-2007-11-08.html

And then there’s another factor: fuel for the reactors. Yesterday’s CQPolitics article raised the question:

…But few people — and it would seem no Washington-based policy makers — are talking about the possibility that there might not be enough reactor fuel to satisfy the rapidly rising global demand.

It’s already clear that worldwide production of electricity by all methods is likely to double during the next two-and-a-half decades. That will be mostly driven by rising calls for power in the developing world, particularly India and China — the same countries that are straining the supplies of fossil fuels.

A joint report last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Atomic Energy Agency repeated that assessment, and noted that if just 10 percent of the increased global demand for electricity is met by construction or expansion of nuclear power plants, the global capacity for nuclear energy would double. That would impose a corresponding doubling in the requirement for enriched uranium and other nuclear plant fuels, and neither current inventories nor the ensured production of new fuel might be able to meet it.

There seems to be a view that nuclear power — aside from the prohibitive cost of design and environmental mitigation — is a relatively cost-free resource. That’s not true at all….

Go read the rest:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002891004

Basically there’s no silver bullet for energy policy. It’ll be a complex portfolio approach. Not particularly good for campaign slogans.

Wind turbines only take up a lot of space if the land isn’t used for anything else - which isn’t what happens. The turbines have to be spaced apart, but the “footprint” of each turbine is only a fraction of the area needed. The turbines are frequently placed on land that was already being used for grazing and farming.