Why are there so many advocates for nuclear energy? Especially, as we still haven%26#039;t found a way to effectively deal with the byproducts: radioactive, toxic waste? 10% 1 Vote

%26quot;Civilian nuclear power producers benefit greatly from shifting a substantial portion of their liability for radioactive releases from accidents or attacks away from owners and investors and onto the taxpayer and the surrounding population.

These costs, both through higher insurance premiums and higher cost of capital,
would properly be reflected in the price of nuclear electricity. This subsidy has never been quantified comprehensively, but affects not only reactors, but nuclear fuel cycle facilities and nuclear materials transport as well. On a global level, the
subsidy is likely to be well in excess of $10 billion per year.
In the United States, current surcharges on nuclear power too low to cover expected disposal costs. In addition, the US government foolishly absorbed all risk for an on-time opening of a repository for commercial nuclear waste -- despite longstanding technical and political challenges associated with making this happen. %26quot;

We have the technology now to have nearly 100% solar power grid in this century, or 65% by 2050 and never have to transport any fuel of any kind.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so... Scientific American article

Calls for spending less public money than we now give oil companies in subsidies. The hidden costs of oil, including subsidies to oil companies is about 40 times the cost of doing this. 0% 0 Votes 10% 1 Vote

Well I am an advocate because I believe it is the best solution for our energy needs. It is clean, reliable and the problems are few. You are right that there are issues but if we all agreed that in the real world it is the best alternative and allowed the scientists the resource to solve the problems then they could.

Covering our countryside with wind turbines that are inefficient, sod all use on a calm day and require thousands of them to power an Anne Summers torch - is a nice, fluffy, pie in the sky idea for some. Normally those who live miles away from where they shall be sighted of course. Tide and solar too have limitations. I am not against alternative sources per say but I am really ticked off with the ecomentalists who come out with the emotional blackmail line against nuclear as they don%26#039;t have an open mind to exploring it. It seems to be either you agree with them or are lambasted as some kind of immoral monster.

All energy sources come with risks, dangers and problems and as I say I believe that nuclear problems can be solved and is truly workable and practical solution.

Edit - to the young lady Sandy below. I appreciate your stand point but you can not hold up Chernobyl as a typical example for ever. The technology has moved on so much since then and new modern built reactors and stations will have little in common with the old Soviet technology. The Comet was the worlds first commercial jet powered airliner and after a while it kept falling out the skies due to a design flaw. If people had just given up there and then, then we would not have airplanes as we know them now. It would be wildly inaccurate to say that all jet airplanes are unsafe today and we should not have any because the Comets windows were causing stress points all those years ago. EDIT 2 - to Ned. I suspect he won%26#039;t read this but just in case he does. How narrow minded and blinkered you are. To say that the Soviets never made anything that works just smacks of bigoted ignorance. If you care to check they put the first man into space, put the first satellite up there too. They also basically made the best rocket engines in the world and the technology from them is still widely regarded as being the best. They pioneered many aspects of science and medicine that have been ground breaking and all of that under a terrible system. The modern Russia is technologically striding ahead and they have a well educated and technically excellent work force. I see from your other answers what your political persuasion is and I have no issue with that but don%26#039;t automatically assume that things that came from within a communist system or that which comes after is necessarily inferior or inadequate. Mark my words China is the next world number one super power and economic focus will be strongly on the Russian states and India, though the latter was/is not communist. 10% 1 Vote

In a nutshell, because it promises the production of incredible amounts of energy without the CO2, NOx etc... production associated with traditional fossil fuels. 0% 0 Votes

I am for it because it is both efficient and rather cheap. Chernobyl was built by the Soviet Union and nothing they build works anyways. I believe there are 128 working plants in the US and I have been to several and they have not melted down so I think we have that problem fixed not to mention Carriers and Subs run by nuke power.
People just want to complain not actually fix a problem that is why. If the issue went away what would they complain about? Maybe the something new just to create more problems. There is no pleasing some people sorry. 10% 1 Vote

Well, sure we have. Bury it in that mountain in Utah or Nevada.

Nuclear is clean and efficient, relative to other biofuels. Sure, there might be an explosion once every 50 years, and a few thousand ppl might be killed or injured. But look at all the millions who benefit healthwise from a clean atmosphere.

There%26#039;s always a tradeoff of some sort, no matter.

Only way to go. 10% 1 Vote