"The reason, as influential climate blogger Joseph Romm has pointed out, is that getting there would require the United States to build 500 nuclear power stations between now and 2050—one a month!—and that's assuming no increase in electricity demand." - Eric Pooley

Suppose that it takes 20 years for a tree to grow to maturity. You need 10 mature trees. So you multiply 20 years per tree by 10 trees and conclude that you will have to wait 200 years for the last tree to mature. You are Joseph Romm and you are an idiot.

Just as trees can be grown in parallel, nuclear power plants can be built in parallel. You don't have to be able to build a nuclear power plant in a month. In the 15 years between 1970 and 1985 roughly 300 nuclear power plants came online worldwide. <link> That's 20 plants per year - one every 18 days! Amazing! Who knew that a nuclear power plant could be built in 18 days? Idiots.

Now that we are doing the math, I'm really scared! There is over 50,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste sitting at 131 sights in 39 states right now. Even if the Yucca Mountain repository was finished and the legal battles were over, it would quickly be filled with what we already have!

So let's talk about getting it all there. As it is, one truckload of deadly waste would be on the road every 4 hours, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for decades. It would pass through 100 of America's largest cities on a regular basis. Barges would have to go through 17 ports and across the drinking water of the Great Lakes. The DOE predicts 66 truck accidents and 10 rail accidents.

We could talk about how vulnerable to terrorism and accident that waste is right where it currently sits (in pools at reactor sites), or we could talk about how vulnerable the Yucca Mountain repository would be, or how about how vulnerable it would be moving it all around the country, but you can calculate that.

I think we better be sure we figure in the cost and dangers of waste management before we decide to built one in a month, or one every 18 minutes. Do the math, Nuclear Energy is neither clean or safe.

Correct, It is a potentialy very deadly solution even with the best technology and has real and hidden costs that just keeps on costing. The savings on your electricity must always be subsidized by the state to remain affordable and sustainable. You can never pay off this debt even years after you have paid for the original capital cost and it always poses a constant danger both locally and nationally. It has it's limited and careful role to play as part of the energy program. But it must never be considered an energy solution from feelings of desperation. This is no easy fix in every sense of the word.

I agree, the most important analysis of the value of nuclear power is the cost issue. I don't want to rule out nuclear power, but I do not believe in burying the waste. I believe in above ground monitored storage paid for by utility companies that generate power from nuclear plants (and the consumers of that power). That means employee's watching geiger counters in the desert. There should also be a superfund tax to clean up the inevitable leaks expected to occur over 10000 years (the expected time of radioactivity of the waste).

Some legitimate points are being made here, but I sense a tad bit of fear mongering as well. Here's an interesting video:

<link>

It would be nice if we could get large portions of our electricity from wind and solar, but right now we just don't have a way of storing this electricity, and the costs are significantly higher than coal. If we're really serious about reducing the carbon footprint of our electricity right now, we pretty much have to build more nuclear. By all means, keep developing solar and wind, and build these where it makes sense, but if you really think global warming is a serious issue that we have to proactively combat, we need to stop fighting nuclear out of fear.

As for Yucca, DOE's current plans have it able to handle 2-3 times that 50,000 metric tons figure of yours, so it wouldn't be filled immediately, although it would obviously be just a matter of time. Still, I fail to see how a single secured location in an underground geological repository is more dangerous than many dry cask sites across the country. A site where we have tested nuclear weapons in the past, no less. And I would point out that with the american/canadian design for nuclear plants, no accident has lead to death, not even 3 mile island. Compare this to coal, which has several deaths every year from pipe ruptures and other sources, not to mention mining deaths.