(March 13, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: That's always the problem with nuclear power; it appeals to neither side but it provides for everyone. It's ecological...if you don't cut the fucking corners in its construction and development. It's economical...but you always want to squeeze a few pennies out of construction because it IS a heavy initial investment. Economists want to cost-cut the plants. Greenies want to just plain cut them. Neither side is right, both of them are wrong. Nuclear power is not a simple, easy, convenient toy, it's an expensive juggernaut that can power tons of shit for a really long time. I almost think that nuclear power came too soon. The world wasn't ready for it. Now we ARE ready for it, but...old fears die hard. Still, until solar becomes reliable [yes, it provides lots of power reliably, but you have to rely on weather conditions to work with you and we should know better than to demand that of nature by now], ecologists should be backing nuclear power 100% on the conditions that the plants are carefully maintained and upgraded and funded.
I`d say the biggest problem is the waste.
The only reason why energy companies make a profit is because the goverment pays the cost of safely storing the nuclear waste.
And even the places at which they are currently stored have to be constantly renovated and the waste relocated.
One also has to remember that the waste will be hazerdous material for sometimes even a million years.
This is the main reason why I oppose nuclear power and the argument stand until someone can show me a logisticaly and financialy possible way of storing nuclear waste for a million years.
Which so far no one has.
