This is alarmist and mostly wrong. There is enough uranium for two reasons. First, we can recover 95% of the uranium in a fuel rod via reprocessing. Second, su

This is alarmist and mostly wrong. There is enough uranium for two reasons. First, we can recover 95% of the uranium in a fuel rod via reprocessing. Second, supplies change according to market demand, as happened with oil. Remember, we were to have run out of oil by now, but that sure didn't happen. Nuclear plants do not need to take decades or be uneconomic. This is self-inflicted due to political opposition, largely by an insane regulatory agency (won't discuss preliminary designs, gives only a yes/no on final plans) and the very same lawsuits that make every big project a mess in the USA. Having a long half-life means that the substance is not a problem. The longer the half-life, the less radioactive something is. An extreme example is tungsten, an element for which we recently observed radioactive decay and thus finally proved that it is in fact radioactive. A single particle of plutonium, if injested, will almost certainly do you no harm. You face a far greater radioactive risk from the common banana, which is laced with radioactive phosphorus. We have figured out what to do. First we reprocess the spent fuel rods, recovering about 95% of the fuel for making new fuel rods. (Japan does this) Next we bury the remainder in Nevada, for example in the already-contaminated underground test sites.