Timbotronic writes "The UK government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming. In an interview with the Guardian, Sir David King said there were economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors." From the article: "His remarks come in the build-up to international talks in Montreal on how to address the threat of climate change when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. He denied suggestions - sparked by comments from Mr Blair that he was changing his mind on whether international treaties were the best way to tackle global warming - that Britain was moving closer to the stance of the US, which has refused to back Kyoto-style emission reductions."Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='power,science';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; UK's Chief Scientist Backs Nuclear Power Revival Log in/Create an Account | Top | 241 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 241 comments 0: 238 comments 1: 185 comments 2: 122 comments 3: 33 comments 4: 18 comments 5: 12 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Nuclear Power (Score:5, Interesting) by Cowclops (630818) on Friday October 21, @08:29PM (#13849535) I personally don't see a problem with this. What with modern technology, it seems like we should be able to build nuclear power plants much safer and more efficient than anything in the past. The threat of the radioactive biproducts is an issue, but it is a much less immediate (and, in the long term anyway, less of an actual threat) than dumping tons of smog in the air until we're out of coal and oil. [ Reply to This Re:Nuclear Power (Score:5, Insightful) by mordors9 (665662) on Friday October 21, @08:33PM (#13849559) Ah, but it will only be a matter of time before the anti-Nuke people will rear their ugly heads once again. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nuclear Power by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:40PMRe:Nuclear Power by pfdietz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:42PMRe:Nuclear Power by pfdietz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:08PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Nuclear Power by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Yes, but... by WindBourne (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:53AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Nuclear Power (Score:5, Interesting) by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday October 21, @08:33PM (#13849567) (http://www.kibbee.ca/) Which brings up a question that's been on my mind. How much nuclear fuel is on earth. If we replaced all the fossil fuels we use, with nuclear fuel, how long would our supplies last? And how much nuclear waste would be created as a result? If nuclear fuel just replaces fossil fuels, and ends up creating the same problems in another 100 years, then we really should be thinking of a solution that works out better in the long term. Like wind, geothermal, and other types of clean, renewable, energy. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Nuclear Power (Score:5, Interesting) by aaronl (43811) on Friday October 21, @08:49PM (#13849657) (http://wire-head.org/) Power in the future isn't going to be wind, geothermal, etc, because it doesn't produce enough power. Obviously, the more we can get that way the better, but they are highly inefficient, and require specific placement. That means you have a limited amount that you can put online.We have a very large amount of uranium ore around, but it isn't easy to get. The process of creating fuel from it is also complicated. Our best bet is to use fission while we refine the passive generation (solar, hydro, etc) and research fusion. If we figure fusion out, then we don't have to worry about the other forms, though solar is a good idea to continue researching. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nuclear Power by LiquidCoooled (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:36PMRe:Nuclear Power by aaronl (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:04PMRe:Nuclear Power by linuxpyro (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @12:38AMRe:Nuclear Power by Dasher42 (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:54AM Re:Nuclear Power (Score:5, Informative) by Phanatic1a (413374) on Friday October 21, @09:01PM (#13849721) How much nuclear fuel is on earth. If we replaced all the fossil fuels we use, with nuclear fuel, how long would our supplies last?There's about 50 years of uranium reserves right now, a bit over 2 million tons.Reserves are ores that are economically exploitable. In other words, reserves increase when you find a less expensive way to get the ore, or when the price of ore rises. If the price of ore goes up by 50%, we more than double our reserves to 5 million tons. If it goes up much more than that, oceanic reserves [sarov.ru] come into play, and there are 4.5 *billion* tons in the oceans.Now, that's talking about U235 burned in a PWR. There are other things you can do which vastly increase reserves. There are reactor designs that can breed U238 into U235. That presents a proliferation concern, but you can also just burn U238 in a CANDU reactor or other design. You can breed thorium into U233 and burn that.And the thing is that nuclear fuel is so much more energy-dense than chemical fuel. Coal has an energy content of about 24 MJ per kilogram, assuming perfect conversion to electricity, and I think good coal plants with top-of-the-line turbines and boilers and everything can get up to about 70% overall thermal efficiency, but hell, let's say 90%. Figures I found for the US in 1982 indicate that all the nuclear power plants in the US consumed 540 tons of fuel and produced 1.1E12 kilowatt-hours of electricity, which means *after* all those efficiency losses (PWRs are less thermally efficient because you've got to transfer heat across coolant loops), we were getting 8 million megajoules per kilogram of fuel.8 million megajoules per kilogram, versus 21.6 megajoules per kilogram. What that means is that your *fuel* cost can rise significantly, but your cost per kilowatt-hour at your meter will see only a very small rise.So to sum up, there's a hella lot of nuclear fuel available. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nuclear Power by cluckshot (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:42PMRe:Nuclear Power by kesuki (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:55PMWhy not fusion? by DigiShaman (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:46PMRe:Why not fusion? by Helios1182 (Score:3) Friday October 21, @09:55PMRe:Why not fusion? by Phanatic1a (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:09PMRe:Nuclear Power by radl33t (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:39PMRe:Nuclear Power by blank axolotl (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @12:39AMRe:Nuclear Power by zerus (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:43AM Re:Nuclear Power (Score:4, Informative) by fredmosby (545378) on Friday October 21, @09:05PM (#13849749) It depends on what kind of process is used to make power. Most reactors use U235, and there's only enough of that in the current uranium mines to last 50 years. If a plutonium process were used (turning the U238 into plutonium) the same amount of uranium could power the world for around 1000 years. There's also about three times as much thorium, which can be turned into U233 to produce power. So that's around 4000 years mining the uranium and thorium that is economical to extract at todays prices. With higher uranium costs more could be extracted. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nuclear Power by SeaFox (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:34PMRe:Nuclear Power by FleaPlus (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:06PM Solve the War on Terrorism. (Score:4, Insightful) by portforward (313061) on Friday October 21, @08:54PM (#13849682) I've been thinking about this for a long while. I wonder what would happen if the US (like some commentators have suggested) embark on a "Manhattan Project" for energy. If the US highly encouraged oil exploration, solar, wind, nuclear, hybrid (like the plug into your wall to charge the batteries), Sterling engine, biodiesel, thermal depolermersation (you know, turkey offal and sewage into oil), microwaves and mining the moon and Jupiter for fusion fuel. What would happen if through alternative energy initiatives we could drive the price of oil down to $10 a barrel. I'm not saying it will happen, or even if it could happen, but what would happen to the Saudis, Iran, Venezuela and all the other dictatorships that run on oil? What would happen if America could export its energy technology instead of importing oil? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Solve the War on Terrorism. by ProudClod (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:06PMRe:Solve the War on Terrorism. by darkmeridian (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:23PMRe:Solve the War on Terrorism. by Bandit0013 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:48PMRe:Solve the War on Terrorism. by coyote-san (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:32PMRe:Solve the War on Terrorism. by coyote-san (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:47PMRe:Solve the War on Terrorism. by ChrisMaple (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:49PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Not-In-My-Backyard Syndrome by Vorondil28 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:12PM Re:Not-In-My-Backyard Syndrome (Score:4, Informative) by HanzoSpam (713251) on Friday October 21, @10:31PM (#13850163) Modern reactors are far safer than their more temperamental counterparts of the 70s and 80s (Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?). It's ridiculous to even mention Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the same breath. What people seem to ignore is that the reactor at TMI functioned exactly as designed in the event of a meltdown - it shut itself down. I'd also point out that Three Mile Island is still in operation. Only one reactor was affected. The rest of the facility has been humming along quite nicely ever since.Three Mile Island isn't an example of how dangerous nuclear technology is, it's an example of how safe it is. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Nuclear Power by dbIII (Score:3) Friday October 21, @09:13PMRe:Nuclear Power by pfdietz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:47PMRe:Nuclear Power by Seumas (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:38PMRe:Nuclear Power by jcr (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:52PMRe:Nuclear Power by dfn5 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:45PMRe:Nuclear Power by s1234d (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:39PM4 replies beneath your current threshold. right.... (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, @08:31PM (#13849546) no greenhouse gases, just a few thousand tonnes of radioactive waste. what could be the downside? [ Reply to This Re:right.... (Score:5, Insightful) by AuMatar (183847) on Friday October 21, @08:33PM (#13849566) Radioactive waste can be contained. A trick we haven't figured out with air pollution yet. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:right....Coal Hearted. by AuMatar (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:49PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:right.... (Score:5, Funny) by eweu (213081) on Friday October 21, @08:37PM (#13849586) Have you ever been to Nevada? I'm pretty sure that's why God made it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:right.... by Guppy06 (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:right.... by aaronl (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:51PMRe:right.... by dbIII (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:00PMRe:right.... by aaronl (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:12PMRe:right.... by dbIII (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:42PMRe:right.... by aaronl (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:08PMRe:right....Pine-scented nuclear. by aaronl (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:25PMRe:right....Pine-scented nuclear. by dbIII (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:29PMRe:right....Pine-scented nuclear. by aaronl (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:right.... by Mr2cents (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:02PMRe:right.... by mattotoole (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:09PMRe:right.... by ozmanjusri (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:07PMRe:right.... by ThaFooz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Well which is it? (Score:2) by Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) on Friday October 21, @08:33PM (#13849565) in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming If the world is facing "Peak Oil", then the "global warming crisis" will subside once production is on the decline curve. [ Reply to ThisRe:Well which is it? by Rycross (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:38PMRe:Well which is it? by aaronl (Score:3) Friday October 21, @09:00PMRe:Well which is it? by Phanatic1a (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:15AMOil Powered Power Plants by dakirw (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:56PMRe:Well which is it? by Phanatic1a (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:40PMRe:Well which is it? by Average_Joe_Sixpack (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:45PMRe:Well which is it? by ThaFooz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:23PMRe:Well which is it? by Average_Joe_Sixpack (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:37PMRe:Well which is it? by ThaFooz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:58PMRe:Well which is it? by Average_Joe_Sixpack (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:17PMRe:Well which is it? by Planesdragon (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:59PMRe:Well which is it? by Average_Joe_Sixpack (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:31PMRe:Well which is it? by pfdietz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:51PMRe:Well which is it? by Average_Joe_Sixpack (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:10PMRe:Well which is it? by tehdaemon (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:36PMRe:Well which is it? by pfdietz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:21PMRe:Well which is it? by IvyKing (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:17PMRe:Well which is it? - both! by erbmjw (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (Score:4, Insightful) by Solr_Flare (844465) on Friday October 21, @08:33PM (#13849568) Better to tackle the "looming energy crisis" head on and use human ingenuity to come up with a better, more environmentally friendly, solution. Simply settling for something that works but has problems is the same attitude that has gotten the world into this rediculous oil mess, all the while destroying the very planet we live on. I'm not saying Nuclear power might not be the best answer for a short term emergency, but short term solutions tend to become long term ones when government is concerned. [ Reply to This Re:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions (Score:5, Insightful) by Phanatic1a (413374) on Friday October 21, @08:45PM (#13849630) Simply settling for something that works but has problemsOh, really?*Everything* has problems. I mean, come on, just wave your hands and come up with your ideal hypothetical, theoretical scheme for energy production, and I guarantee it will have some sort of problem.The suggestion that we should wait to fix our current problems until we've figured out a way to eliminate *all possible* problems is not only silly, it's dangerous.all the while destroying the very planet we live on.Please. The planet has withstood enormous meteor impacts, global firestorms, earthquakes, enormous floods, and devasting environmental shifts far beyond our ability to cause, like the development of organisms which excrete oxygen as a waste product (You know, "plants").The *planet* is doing just *fine*. The planet's survival is not at issue. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions by Nick_Psyko (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:39PMOrganisms are not as durable as planets. by replicant108 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:54PMRe:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions by Studio A (Score:1) Saturday October 22, @12:03AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Short Term Answer with long term repercussions by dbIII (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:32PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Let's go for it! (Score:5, Insightful) by wheelbarrow (811145) on Friday October 21, @08:33PM (#13849570) Nuclear power generation is safer and less polluting than burning fossil fuels to generate power. The new pebble bed reactors [wikipedia.org] offer a significant safety improvement over the old fuel rod design that is in older plants lile Three Mile Island. It's time to use the brains we have and provide the safe and cheap power that nuclear fission can offer. [ Reply to ThisRe:Let's go for it! by jimcooncat (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:41PMRe:Let's go for it! by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:53PMRe:Let's go for it! by aaronl (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:08PMRe:Let's go for it! by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:08PMRe:Let's go for it! by aaronl (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:33PMRe:Let's go for it! by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:14PMRe:Let's go for it! by wheelbarrow (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:33PMRe:Let's go for it! by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:21PMRe:Let's go for it! by wheelbarrow (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:40PMRe:Let's go for it! by cblood (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:26PMRe:Let's go for it! by jonwil (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:35AM Good on him (Score:2, Insightful) by Jonnty (910561) <jonnty@NospaM.gmail.com> on Friday October 21, @08:37PM (#13849589) As nice as wind turbines are, you're never gonna get enough to gnerate enough power, nor are you getting enough people agreeing to have them built.Nuclear's our only option. At least, if you're that worried, build them to go on until we have enough other means of power generation.Unless, of course, Fusion becomes viable, which (I hope, at least) will probably happen in the next 25 years.Ah well. C'est la vie. [ Reply to ThisRe:Good on him by LurkerXXX (Score:3) Friday October 21, @08:47PMRe:Good on him by swimin (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:56PMRe:Good on him by dakirw (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:20PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. What we need here in the States (Score:3, Insightful) by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@@@yahoo...com> on Friday October 21, @08:38PM (#13849595) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 21, @05:37PM) is a nation wide awarness campaign on how nuclear power works, why it is BETTER for the enviroment, and how it will help allowTalk about the new technologies. [ Reply to ThisRe:What we need here in the States by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @08:43PMRe:What we need here in the States by Seumas (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:What we need here in the States by Vorondil28 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:18PMRe:What we need here in the States by dbIII (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:35PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Nuclear Safety (Score:1) by AtomicRobotMonster (891499) on Friday October 21, @08:42PM (#13849615) Reactor designs have progressed a long way from the 50's.Pebble bed reactors are an inherently safe (being relative) design... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor [wikipedia.org]Couldn't we just make these into sealed units and run them until they stop being radioactive? [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Nuclear is Expensive (Score:1, Flamebait) by nathanh (1214) on Friday October 21, @08:45PM (#13849634) (http://www.manu.com.au/) And nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard. End of discussion. [ Reply to ThisRe:Nuclear is Expensive by Persol (Score:1) Friday October 21, @08:51PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by nathanh (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:02PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by horos2c (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:19PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by nathanh (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:27PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by horos2c (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:30PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by $RANDOMLUSER (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:18PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by blank101 (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:18PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by nathanh (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Nuclear is Expensive by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:33PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by NotBorg (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:13PMRe:Nuclear is Expensive by Orne (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:55PMNobody? by narl (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Other environmental effects. (Score:4, Insightful) by failure-man (870605) <failureman@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Friday October 21, @08:54PM (#13849680) People around here always seem to fall into one of two groups on this issue: those that dance around talking about how clean nuclear power is, and those that shout "what about the fuckin' waste?" What about the enrichment though? What about all the noxious chemicals involved in separating the fissile isotopes from the 99+% useless U-238? What about the huge piles of toxic and somewhat radioactive U-238 that you get at the end? Nobody ever seems to bring that up. I'd like to see what the pro-nuke side has to say about dealing with the environmental effects of this part of the system. [ Reply to ThisRe:Other environmental effects. by JackHolloway (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:17PMRe:Other environmental effects. by bersl2 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:59PMRe:Other environmental effects. by colenski (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:19PMRe:Other environmental effects. by KylePflug (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:40PMRe:Other environmental effects. by failure-man (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:29PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Other environmental effects. by ObsessiveMathsFreak (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:21PMRe:Other environmental effects. by G-funk (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:01PMRe:Other environmental effects. by CastrTroy (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:23PMhave you ever been to a coal mining town? by YesIAmAScript (Score:2) Friday October 21, @11:24PM Re:Other environmental effects. (Score:5, Insightful) by m50d (797211) on Friday October 21, @09:29PM (#13849880) (http://www.sdonag.plus.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 20, @04:38AM) What about the enrichment though? What about all the noxious chemicals involved in separating the fissile isotopes from the 99+% useless U-238? You can centrifuge so you don't really need any chemicals, and so little fuel is needed to get a given amount of energy that the amounts used are miniscule compared to what would be used digging up the same amount of coal/oil/etc. What about the huge piles of toxic and somewhat radioactive U-238 that you get at the end? Ever seen a slag heap? The amount of waste is again going to be miniscule compared to what you'd produce getting the coal or oil needed to get the same amount of energy, the radiation danger is a tiny fraction of what you get from the radon you'll release mining coal. The toxicity is overstated, it's not really any worse than lead - yes it's not something you'd want to be too near, but neither are the much larger piles of stuff used for mining and oil-drilling. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Other environmental effects. by Yehooti (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:52PMRe:Other environmental effects. by failure-man (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:31PMRe:Other environmental effects. by Yehooti (Score:1) Friday October 21, @10:56PMRe:Other environmental effects. by pfdietz (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:56PMRe:Other environmental effects. by Frogbert (Score:2) Friday October 21, @10:28PMRe:Other environmental effects. by Phanatic1a (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:09AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. carbon neutral (Score:2) by pr0nbot (313417) on Friday October 21, @08:55PM (#13849684) At random I caught an interesting debate on BBC24 between 4 MEPs. They were discussing the need for nuclear power. There was an interesting claim by the Finnish chap that nuclear power produces no carbon output. The German Green countered that this was ignoring the carbon cost of plant construction, maintenance, production of rods, waste disposal, decommissioning, etc. Her general point was that those who argue that nuclear power is cheap and efficient ignore the overheads and invisible costs.Another interesting point made was that the alternatives proposed by the anti-nuclear position have no chance of being developed and deployed on a sufficient scale and in time to meet the Kyoto targets. The greens countered that they were also trying to address the demand side of the energy problem, unlike the nuclear lobby who seek only to replace existing supply. [ Reply to ThisRe:carbon neutral by AtomicRobotMonster (Score:1) Friday October 21, @09:08PMNuclear energy subsidies by kupci (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:18PMRe:carbon neutral by nutshell42 (Score:2) Friday October 21, @09:38PMRe:carbon neutral by msevior (Score:3) Friday October 21, @10:32PMRe:carbon neutral by horos2c (Score:1) Friday October 21, @11:53PMRe:carbon neutral by msevior (Score:2) Saturday October 22, @12:41AM The public's general reaction... (Score:2, Insightful) by ddx Christ (907967) on Friday October 21, @08:59PM (#13849712) Is akin to a situation where someone tells you to lift a supposedly cold glass, but it's actually boiling. That's what initially happened with nuclear fission. Now that same person is asking us to pick it up again, but can we be sure it's inherently safe to do so and we won't receive 3rd degree burns? I'm not saying this is my point of view, but what I usually encounter when talking to others.A bad reputation is very difficult to eliminate. Whereas a good reputation is ruined by one bad action, the same cannot be said for the converse. Nuclear power has clear advantages as well as disadvantages; technology has improved. But if we can't deal with mercury, toxic chemicals, and other pollutants, what are we going to do with nuclear waste? If we have a plan and are ready, then go ahead, but we should still look for alternatives and improvements. [ Reply to This But then again... (Score:2) by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Friday October 21, @09:00PM (#13849715) If we've got the likes of (Massachusetts Senator) Ted Kennedy opposing [dcexaminer.com]something as benign as offshore wind farms [capewind.org] with obvious NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) arguments, how can we expect people to agree to deal with transportation and storage of spent fuel rods which have a half-life [wikipedia.org] in the tens-of-thousands of years? [ Reply to This The problem with nuclear power... (Score:3, Insightful)