>...- no one has yet solved the waste problem (okay, the US has ample free land, but the rest of the world does not!) In terms of the waste, right now nuclear

>...- no one has yet solved the waste problem (okay, the US has ample free land, but the rest of the world does not!) In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel: "...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity. >...- the proliferation risk is not eliminated (and no, it's not only plutonium, but also ordinary uranium for dirty bombs to take care of, plus the risk of enrichment tech, as evidenced with Iran) This isn't really relevant for commercial nuclear power - no country has ever gotten a nuclear bomb from commercial nuclear reactors. No terrorist has ever gotten access to nuclear waste. There are lots easier ways for terrorists and countries to obtain nuclear material. (Nuclear designs like the Integral Fast Reactor keep everything on site (including reprocessing) so the terrorist threat would be even more unlikely.) >..- uranium fuel is mined under incredibly exploitative conditions. Better than mining rare earths or coal etc. >...Additionally the US doesn't have meaningful uranium reserves on their territory, With next gen breeder reactors, there is enough fuel for tens of thousands of years. (Or thorium reactors might be used, etc) >...- safety issues haven't been solved at all: Nuclear power has proven to be the safest form of mass power we have ever created. Yes, like any power source we should worry about terrorism, but that isn't unique to nuclear power. >...Fission is a dead end, the hope is solar, wind and battery storage. It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using natural gas to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. But what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. Is your fear of nuclear power so great that if you had to choose, you would prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?