"Where do we put spent waste?"

In a very deep hole in the ground such as an old mineshaft. In Colorado or Nebraska would be my first choices.

During this administration nuclear is a dangerous idea.

The obama administration was derelict in monthly inspections of the BP rig.

Obviously the obama NRC would be incapable of safely regulating nuclear.

Perhaps the next President...

Nuclear waste can be dramatically reduced by the simple and time-honored tradition of recycling.

The most dangerous parts of spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into more reactor fuel. This eliminates nearly all of the very long lived reaction products.

The French have been doing it for decades, and the US used to recycle it's commercial nuclear waste 'till congress intervened and forbade the AEC from doing it.

These little 250MW nukes are a great idea: They can be built by the dozen and located close to users, unlike the typical 1,000+MW plant, which will save transmission losses.

All of the US nuclear power plants to date have been one of a kind. By standardizing on one fairly small design, you can leverage the experience of each plant to make all of 'em safer.

I'm pro-nuke. Designs are a lot better now than the 40-year-old reactors we're flogging today. Not only would I move near one, I'd apply for a job.

The issue with a nuke in western Kansas is water. A nuke plant takes a reliable source (mind you, so does a coal plant). The difference is that if you have to shut down a coal plant in 25 years due to uneconomic water supply, you've already paid off the construction years ago. A nuke is amortized over 40-50 years if it's ever going to operate in the black. And no one is betting on there being adequate surface or aquifer water in Western Kansas for gigawatt-scale power plants exporting 90% of their power (Locked in the contract! Kansas consumers can never get access to 90% of the power made there.) to Front Range Colorado. Especially ironic when you consider the water wars with Colorado.

Adequate water is even a limiting factor on being able to build a Wolf Creek Unit 2, let alone in the High Plains.

Most of the people on here aren't willing to listen to, or accept what the two of you say.

They'd rather blindly regurgitate what they heard about in the 70s. (Or what groups like the Sierra Club tell them to think.)

Your truth is falling on deaf ears. They're not willing to accept any innovations that may have taken place over the last 30 years. To them nuclear is exactly the same now as it was then. Unlike everything else in this world, nuclear is void of any improvements.

OK Mr. Right, I'll bite: -Which energy sources have produced more new energy in the past decade? Nuclear, solar or wind? Nuclear comes in LAST, both in the US (zero--no new nukes built due not to anything but simple economics!) and in the world. Wind is first, followed by solar. Don't believe it? Look it up yourself.

-I'm old enough to remember why the US decided against reprocessing nuclear fuels--are you? It's not due to the economics or the waste issue--it's because of the high risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Anyone who reprocesses nuclear fuel can make their own bombs. Why do you think there's such a stink being made about Iran?? So your choice is: reprocess it to reduce the amount of waste and drastically increase the chances of some wackos making their own bombs, or try to figure out how to store the waste safely for the next 25,000 to 100,000 years. Good luck with either path, buddy, and still make it economically viable.

-Then there's the little issue of the nuclear industry: why after 56 years of SERIOUS subsidies that true renewables can only drool over, is it still not economically viable? Do you realize how much taxpayers are being milked to develop this new effort? Not only is there heavy subsidies to develop these "new generation" nukes (read: "beam me up, Scottie"), we taxpayers, through the congress, have signed up to guarantee billions in loans to build the plants, so that if the utilities go belly up, the corporations who built them are going to get paid anyway thanks to you and me! And if any plant melts down or otherwise pollutes, the Price-Anderson Act limits the amount of liability to a miniscule amount, so that, unlike BP, which hasn't found a way out of paying for the Gulf cleanup yet, these nuclear players just say, "oops! here's the bill--sorry guys!"

So tell me, Mr. Right, who's blind and deaf again?

All mute points.

The obama administration has proved to be negligent in safely regulating oil rigs; I shudder to imagine how sloppy an obama Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be...

I'll say it again; nuclear during obama's regime is too dangerous.

Even if that weren't the point, I've grown weary of arguing with folks who ignore facts. Please, don't take my, or anyone else's word for it. I did a lot of research when I heard someone talking about how nuclear was a safe efficient alternative to coal; I had the same knee-jerk reactions as you. But then I went past all the propaganda. You can too, it just takes a little time and effort. What keeps nuclear safe today is strong regulation; obamas administration has proven they are incapible; so I've changed my mind....nuclear at this point is a very bad idea.

Right, Not moot points at all; all three points were equally valid before Obama and will be valid after Obama. Your logic is completely absent here.

Nuclear power is inextricably linked to getting access to nuclear materials that could either be made into dirty bombs or further processed into fission bombs. End of story.

Nuclear power industry continues to get the biggest subsidies of any energy production source and has recieved sweetheart loans backed with taxpayers' dollars and waived of all but the smalest liabilities because of Price Anderson act.

And yet, despite these incredible subsidies, the industry struggles to come up with a plan that makes economic sense, so much so that wind and solar continue to produce more new power worldwide than new nuclear has in the past decade.

Modular nukes only spread the risk and potential hazards--it will require increased security and corresponding restrictions of civil liberties. Is that really what you'd want in your neighborhood?