And the profits grow

[kandrathe]

...

Btw, I'm not all that negative towards nuclear power. I actually believe we will need it, and not only for energy production (just like coal and oil have other uses besides being burned). But some of you seem to think that nuclear power will bring heaven on earth, so I felt obliged to put in a few countering arguments. Sorry if that was too much for the 'hacks' here B)

Hmmm, let me refresh your memory about what you inaccurately posted about nuclear power.

"The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to be very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years"

That's right. Only 85 years, according to optimistic sources (like http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006...rces.html). Hardly worth investing in, I'd say, considering all the risks.

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

"In other words, there is very little high grade ore and proportionately much more low grade ore."

In other words, it won't be long before nuclear power becomes expensive too.

Your opinion was... "Hardly worth investing in, I'd say, considering all the risks."

People sought to clarify your inaccurate statement, pointing out that reprocessing spent fuel would extend the life by 2500 years. You never "ate crow", and admitted you were wrong. Then, you wrongly assumed that no one is doing spent fuel reprocessing. When pointed out that 8 nations are reprocessing, you said that the US is not doing reprocessing anymore. That is true, but due to political, not technical issues. Ok, now you are saying nuclear IS an option. But, do you still believe it will be too expensive and last a mere 85 years? Do you think the waste problem is resolved, or is it too risky? Your solution was Solar, but your vague solution was hardly viable now, was it? The truth is, the numbers I cranked out, and the engineering obstacles for the mega facility in the Sahara do not get smaller if you break it up into 100 facilities around the world. There are places where solar generation make economic sense, like Spain, or the US desert SW where the amount of sun received is powerful and consistent. In my area, we find that collecting solar power is better done with wind generators. I don't believe nuclear reactors should be built in areas prone to climatic or geologic catastrophe. I don't think anyone proposed a one technology solution.

Is there any hope for fusion reactors, such as ITER to come on line in the next few decades? No one has said that Nuclear is Nirvana, however, I for one think it is a better solution in some areas than investing in dilute solar power facilities or continuing to pollute the planet with coal fly ash, and pumping tonnes of CO2 and waste particulates into the atmosphere.

Again, I'm practical and pragmatic. I will support of the most economically viable least polluting technology. The US has a mountain of coal, and an even more gargantuan mountain of oil shale. I'd hate to see it burnt.

For my part, it's not your feeble argument, but the baseless ad hominem attack and inconsistency that is "too much for the 'hacks' here".