[tivodan1116]

Quote by: gela Its just another short term solution.

I wouldn't call the next century "short term".

The ONE Yucca Mountain facility has enough capacity to store the nuclear waste of every facility in the United States spanning from the dawn of the nuclear age until 2014 WITHOUT spent rod reprocessing, which would save about 60% if the US were to build such a facility.

Another Yucca Mountain-like place and fuel reprocessing, along with some minor efficiency innovations sure to come along in the future would EASILY push us past 2100.

The only reason it has so much government support is because it makes money for big business.

Well that's not the only reason, but even if it is one such reason, what's the problem? Do you have something against supporting an industry that would create thousands of high-paying jobs?

Solar Power is a much more logical solution.

Based upon what? The fact that it lacks the capacity or efficiency to power large cities? The fact that it takes millions of acres to generate the same amount of power that a nuclear plant can do on a much smaller footprint?

Quote by: gela They might have the initial cost of setting them up; but they don't have the ongoing cost of mining the uranium, transporting the uranium, using the uranium, transporting the nuclear waste, disposing of the nuclear waste.

And yet somehow, nuclear power is still less expensive than solar. So how do you figure solar is better?

The mining industry, the transportation indusdustry, and the power industry can gain from Nuclear energy.

Sounds great. Are you arguing for or against it?

Solar energy can be set up by the individual, put on your roof, and then if you have excess power, you can sell it back to the power company.

Your claims here are laughably naive. First of all, solar power is much too complex to be set up by the average do-it-yourselfer. I consider myself to be a pretty far above-average do-it-yourselfer, I've done extensive electrical work on my own house, and installing solar is above my comfort level. I priced a contractor to do it just out of curiousity, they wanted $20,000 not including the price of the panels.

The "if you have excess power" is a really HUGE "if". In my area of the country, the best estimates say that, given my roof area and number of "solar" days, I could get about 33% of my power through solar. Not close to providing all of my needs and a HUGE leap from "selling" anything back to the grid.

There are other complications as well... I can set up a battery system to save for rainy days, however due to safety concerns the power company won't let me have the battery system connected to their power system, so if I lose power I need to physically switch the power myself, and then switch it back when it comes back on.

Only a non existant solar panal industry would profit from this system.

The solar power industry exists, it's just a niche industry due to the limitations of the technology.

I wonder why nuclear power has so much support?

I think I've answered this, don't you?

Quote by: Hurt Profits are best enjoyed in the short term fresh out of the refrigerator.

mmmm as an avid homebrewer (all organic and preservative-free beers!) I would wholeheartedly agree.