Who thinks solar and wind power is more viable who thinks nuclear is and where would you dispose of its waste?

I'm with you. Wind and solar are being developed more all the time, getting cheaper all the time. In Nevada they're building a huge solar plant with a 400 foot tall tower.

Yes, the problem with nuclear is where to store the waste for tens of thousands of years. But in the US we have a worse problem, that our government is not able to regulate the corporations that build and operate these plants, so they can't enforce safety rules. The last nuclear plant built here in California had 300% cost overruns, and ended up not even able to open because they'd built it directly over an earthquake fault. The governor the state actually blocked the study that would have found it first.

Yeah, if you could figure out a good way to export electrical energy, wind and sun power could be Australia's biggest import!

Unfortunately although people LOVE solar power, the technology still produce small amounts of power compared to wind and nuclear power. Solar power requires tons of land to output any usable amounts. Although the sun is all powerful, imagine it like a very fine mist that you want to take a shower with, sure it can get you wet, but not wet enough to shower with.

Wind power is king of the renewable Energy sources TODAY. Tomorrow we might have the solar technology to usurp wind power. The only two problems with wind power are bird kill and aesthetics. The people of mojave are almost all hippie crystal worshipers that want renewable energy, but if you read their opinion columns they all hate having the wind turbines in their area because it ruins their views. So although wind power rocks, many people don't want it near them, they prefer it in somebody Else's yard.

Most people think of Chernobyl type reactors when they think of nuclear power. Today's nuclear reactors are self contained "Batteries" that can't melt down. They plug into a power grid in special receptacles. They can power a small town and have a life of 5 years. The down side is of course what do you do with the spent fuel. They are definitely the best constant power source that we in America have come to expect, but until there is a way to dispose of the waste they aren't very viable. The conventional wisdom is to deposit the waste in the super hold in Arizona (might be new mexico) that they built to store the nastiest stuff we make, but unfortunately it isn't online yet because of very valid environmental concerns. Sure the salt cavern two miles under the earth is a great idea, but worries of eventual seepage into the water table keeps it shut down. Even if it is open all we are doing is burying the problem for somebody else to deal with eventually.

So if you want to end terrorism by taking away the petro dollars that fund it, and the whole reason anybody bothers with the middle east, and you want clean pollution free (more or less) and don't mind wiping out fist fulls of birds in the process (although vertical wind power turbines have shown a remarkable reduction in bird kill) then Wind Power wins.

Wind power IS the answer There is enough eolic energy to power the whole world, many times over.

Germany already understood this and is pulling the plug on all their nukes and expect to be nuke-free by 2015 and fossil free by 2030.

Nuclear power is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. Anybody who says differently should have his/her head examined.

Australia can install solar steam plants, using mirror technology. Similar projects are planned for northern Africa.

.

.

Solar power isn't viable yet, current solar cell technology isn't efficient enough.

I have no problem with wind power, I haven't checked the power generation to cost ratio yet.

As for nuclear power, waste can be disposed of in those great empty deserts of the western US and Australia. Dig a big hole, line it with aluminum, steel, lead, concrete, etc.

For some places, solar and wind won't work well for many years to come.

My state has tons of sun year round, but my state is the least likely to ever support alternative energy.

Here's how you dispose of nuclear waste.

You dig a hole in the ground, you put the waste in the hole. Mission accomplished.

The amount of waste actually created & the "damage" it does to the environment is minuscule in comparison to the amount of harm done and money wasted making wind turbines that generate horrendously low amounts of power in comparison.

Solar is in the same boat right now, maybe there will be a huge breakthrough in solar technology and they'll become more efficient, but right now the safest bet by a pretty wide margin is nuclear.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive, and I think you could dump all the nuclear waste in the world into relatively small area, preferably someplace of no great value otherwise.

if they cascade the nuclear power stations there won't be any waste as each station down the line can use the waste of the higher one, with some reprocessing

Why dispose of nuclear waste?

It can be recycled, into nuclear decay batteries, which recharge themselves for years.

Put the waste in El Monte, CA, they won't mind or notice.