Originally Posted by pig

i may get more into this later, but for now i'll just say that people are looking into nuclear energy very seriously. it's a tough situation; on the plus side it is an primary source of energy, not just an energy carrier. we really lack that at present outside hydrocarbon/oil and the sun. on the down side is the possibility of a catastrophic meltdown, and as will points out, the issue with the waste. not only in safely containing it, but in the question of whether to centralize (yucca mountain) and take the hit on all the hazards of transporting it, or to keep it spread out and thus have to watch it at several different remote locations. if we don't have a significant breakthrough in harnessing a primary source like solar radiation, wind or water energy or the like, we will eventually take on nuclear as a significant portion of our energy production. then the question becomes batteries or fuel cells, which is completely separate.

so, without having watched the pen and teller bit, i would say this: it is bullshit to not 'talk' about nuclear energy, because the people who make the decisions are talking about it. publicly, politicians aren't talking about it right now because it has such negative connotations. an ancilliary problem is that it takes a long time to build a nuclear facility, and with that investment you have to make use of it for a significant period of time - and live with any consequences. i would say we are hedging our bets against peak oil production and the hopes of finding a way to harness an alternative primary energy source.