[gregor]

Originally posted by The Good Soldier Švejk@Apr 18 2006, 01:33 PM
It takes Very Much Oil, And Other Energy To Produce "Useful" Atomic "Stuff" for Power Plants!

If Fact, The Production of Nuclear "Stuff" (Even if It's "Only" the Stuff For Nuclear Power Plants) Costs more Then Alternative Energy Would!

Nuclear Power is a Waste of Time, Energy, And it Destroys The Planet Slowly.

Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower.

Nuclear proponents often assert that renewable sources of power have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain have shown that increasing wind power production contribution to 20% of all energy production, without costly pumped hydro or electrolysis/fuel cell storage, would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup in the absence of power storage. Nuclear proponents often claim that increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology [47]. Some renewable energy sources, such as solar, overlap well with peak electricial production and reduce the need of spare generating capacity. Future applications that use electricity when it is available (e.g. for pressurizing water systems, desalination, or hydrogen generation) would help to reduce the spare generation capacity required by both nuclear and renewable energy sources[48].

and there is more where that came from inlcuding critics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

the only con problems i see are nuclear waste and possible accident. but accidents can be prevented and nuclear waste can be stored safely or perhaps in later stage be launched into space (moon seems like a good target )