Does this entry have a point, with all the ridiculous commentary?

If this plan has a weak point, please say something, instead of meaningless jabbering.

Stealing from my blog: "The bottom line on nuclear is that it just isn't sustainable. Maybe it would do for 50 or 75 years, maybe more, but that's pretty short term thinking for humanity, and that's what got us here in the first place.

There'll be wars over uranium supply (and mining the thing is very polluting, IIRC), plants could be targets for attacks, spent fuel will be a problem to dispose of (it already is), accidents get more likely with a larger number of central, and even the most modern ones will get old with time and risks of accidents will go up, along with costs of replacement/modernization. Nuclear Plants also need large amounts of water to cool down, and that would be a problem in most of the energy hungry places in the US (Nevada, California). The power-grid would still be centralized, unflexible and vulnerable to accidents and incidents, not to mention that any central built now would be heavily subsidized and make less business sense than even current renewable energy technologies (which are getting better fast).

So yeah, Nuclear is a dead end. If we didn't have any other way to reduce CO2 emissions, I'd say "lets buy some time", but we do have other ways."

Nukes in Space! Nukes in Soup! Remember No Nukes? Now it's Green Nukes... Nukes are good for you! One dust particle of plutonium in your lungs and you're toast... Consider they are squattered twenty miles wide all around Chernobyl... one good dust storm? We've doomed the next seven generations into living inside air-conditioned malls. We asked God to do something about malls and parking lots... He made people who love malls and parking lots (True Stories!)

I have always been a defender of green and renewable energy sources but at the same time I would prefer if we would look at nuclear energy in a rational manner. We seem to get into this crazy anti-everything-nuclear mindset. With our current methods of energy production, (coal, oil, natural gas) we spew the contaminants into the atmosphere for everyone to enjoy for generations to come, not to mention the thermal and CO2 pollution. I suggest that we look at new technology such as pebble bed reactors that are not capable of meltdown for our energy needs until we cover North Dakota in wind generators. These technologies reduce or eliminate almost all of the concerns with nuclear energy except for the long term storage issue. Also, a big plus with nuclear is that we can literally pay someone to watch the waste, we can put web cams on it so that everyone knows that the waste is still sitting where it should be. I would much prefer this to sucking in more and more smog, and fighting a dirty war for dirty resources. Just a thought.

I'm reminded of the guy who faked a webcam so millions of people thought they could turn on his christmas lights...

Seriously, pebble bed reactors are definitly a step in the right direction. We need to buy ourselves enough time to manufacture (a process that takes energy AKA oil) wind and solar alternatives before peak oil makes all manufacturing unfeasible. There's certainly some hopeful developments in the area of solar power, particularly titanium foil based photovoltaic cells. The more options we have the better.

I agree with future one , Rational thought, what a concept, I live in Galena and we are going to need a lot of it.