[WOSG]

“No one wants the stuff in their back yard. “

A remote mountain is in nobody’s ‘backyward’, and the Congress has resolved it. Yucca Mountain has been chosen.
nevertheless, used nuclear fuel can be recycled to minimize waste streams and eliminate completely the ‘long-lived waste’ that is a concern.

“yet solar gives us less than 1% of our energy.

That is a lot of energy.”

LOL. ‘less than 1%’ as in a fraction of even that.

Nuclear power generating capacity is 105,585 MWs, enough for 50 million homes. THAT IS A LOT OF POWER.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

Go find out how much solar contributed and report on it.

“It is cheap, reliable, and waste-free.”
Nuclear power can make that claim, not solar.
Solar power remains hugely expensive, not competitive with
other forms of energy production and only put in place where massively subsidized.

[P-40]

Yucca Mountain has been chosen.

You bet it has been chosen. But what is stored there? That place will be in litigation for the next hundred years.

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: “It is cheap, reliable, and waste-free.” Nuclear power can make that claim, not solar. Huh? Yeah real safe[roll eyes] Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power With solar, there will never be a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl.

[Rick_Michael]

At one point they’ll likely become highly competitive. More so the solar plants, then the home versions.

“More concentrated solar power plants will be built in the Southwest, providing clean electricity for millions of homes and businesses around the region. According to Sandia National Labs, costs are predicted to fall to about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020, a price competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.”

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/renewables/solar.asp

[WOSG]

Nuclear power generating capacity is 105,585 MWs, THAT IS A LOT OF POWER.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

Solar capacity is a mere 397 megawatts:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table12.html

So nuclear power today is generating 300 times more energy than solar. Solar generation is miniscule, and as I mentioned only exists at all due to boondoggle subsidies.

Nuclear power is more cost effective, more environmentally friendly (less space needed), yet solar gets all the hype.

I am convinced that energy technology hype is inversely related to its actual utility.