Solar power has some serious short comings often over looked usally by the people who live in the American SW where it is feasable. In most of the US, and Canada short winter days, frequent snow falls covering the panels, and cloudy days, to name just the primary problems. All this during the season when demand will at it's greatist. No amout of break throughs can over come that. Even nature shuts down during the winter due to these problems. Than you all so have to look at what would happen if a storm hit a large solar field. Hail alone could wipe out areas measured in 10s of sq miles, never mind a tornado out break. Just ask a Midwest farmer what happens to their crops when they are hit. Solar is also not without it's eco problems. Production produces a lot of toxic waste, than whats happens to the desert when you carpet large areas with solar panels.

Solar and wind power just aren't good sources of energy. Solar, at least, I know is like celery unless you live in the Tropics or use parabolic mirrors: you use more energy to set them up than they will ever produce.

Not to mention that they use some very rare resources, which limits the number of them that we can use hugely.

Anyone read the sci-fi book Earth by David Brin? Interesting view of the possible near-future, plus a good read. It doesn't focus on future power sources but does include them as part of the backdrop of the story.

Wind also has it's problems, noise, killing bats and birds, some areas ideal for a wind farm are also areas known for their view (people already c/o drilling rigs and power lines). Each unit also requires frequent maintance.
Wind most likely will be used for special circumstances but not as a general purpose producer.

Bring on the nuclear. Australia needs to go the same way yet our Leftist political leadership reject this - preferring to spring us with a great big new tax - called the Emissions Trading Scheme.

My biggest worry about Nuclear Power stations is not that of another Chernobyl (gar spelling!) but that of terrorism. I don't think that modern systems could allow for such an event, but I would be far more worried of the dangers posed were someone to carry out a "traditional" terrorist attack on a nuclear powerstation, where their high explosives would effectively become a dirty bomb.

@fig - that's a reasonable fear - I read a disaster scenario once where a smallish nuke was set off next to San Onofre Nuclear station and caused an ungodly amount of secondary radiation release... but if terrorists are going to blow up nuke stations, they're *already out there* - newer plants are better designed, and in the *long* run will decrease the odds of attack as older plants are retired - *if* we assume newer sources of power are there to pick up the slack.

Diesel emits aerosols into the atmosphere.

Nuclear is a good power source in many ways. It produces waste but so does coal, and at least nuclear waste has a greater potential for containment. Furthermore nuclear does not exacerbate C02 levels nearly as much as coal. The main problem with nuclear is the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Hydro power is very close to its maximum potential, and if built in tropical or sub-tropical areas can contribute as much greenhouse gases as coal.
Solar power in the produced by photovoltaic cells are very expensive to produce - that is it takes a lot of energy to make a photovotaic cell thus reducing its advantage.
Wind power has a lot of potential.

damo72 I don't think that the Emission Trading Scheme should be viewed as a leftist program at all. Such as scheme is all about using the power of market forces to make low emissions power production more attractive. How is such a scheme leftist? And what method would you suggest for reducing emissions that is not leftist?

typo.. such a* scheme [ETS] is all about using the power of market forces....

non-leftist emissions trading scheme: http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15453166

Sounds pretty leftist to me. Auction the energy suppliers to redistribute it evenly to everyone. Sounds good.

Loooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg overdue. Nuclear power is perfectly safe and clean, provided you use it carefully. Chernobyl was Soviet stupidity, and Three Mile Island was a valve failure not even worthy of the six o'clock news. Besides, wind and solar simply cannot fill the gap left by fossil fuels.

TMW from what I have read wind power compares favorably in terms of cost for per kilowatt hour to nuclear. Of course the economics depend on the region: some places are more wind power potential than others.I don't think wind is THE solution but it would appear to part of the solution.

@Dominic - I don't necessarily disagree, but it's better than the giveaway the current state cap and trade bill was turning into

@Spyman - wind and solar *are* part of the solution, but they're only *part* of the solution. They lack consistency and reliability, are only useful in certain locations. A nuke plant can be thrown up pretty much anywhere (although they are more economical next to rivers for cooling purposes), and they keep chugging along except when you're swapping fuel rods or melting down

I'm going to do a little test here to see how much the average person understands nuclear power.

Please do this without looking up things on the internets. :)

"The reactor has gone critical"

This means:
A) The reactor is laying dead
B) The reactor is operating normally
C) The reactor is in an unsafe condition

Ready....... GO!

@DominicHJ - actually diesel has been vastly improved, it's just that there is a public perception that it is a dirty fuel source. Mercedes BlueTec diesels actually burn cleaner than gas engines, and Volkswagen/Audi as well as BMW both have clean diesels, which burn as clean as gas engines, as well.

The problem with Hybrid Technology is that battery life is just no where close to where it should be for Hybrids to be competitive long term. First of all they never come close to the mileage that they "test" at in real world conditions, and you have to replace all of the batteries every decade. Batteries can not be recycled, if you keep a diesel for 20 years it won't have a much worse effect 20 years later, but if you keep a hybrid for 20 years you will have almost 10 times the battery waste (literally).

The other problem is that diesel actually gets better mileage in many cases. The Volkswagen Jetta TDI actually gets better fuel economy than its posted value, but hybrids are usually 20% worse than posted value (plus they only work well in cities not for commuters). This is why both the BMW 335 and the Jetta TDI have been World Green Car of the Year, they are just the better choice.

@Jack Klein, I actually don't know much about Nuclear Power, I do however know quite a bit about Hydro Power, and I think that where it is feasible it is definitely one of the most efficient and cleanest sources of power.

@Jack - B, unless it's Star Trek, in which case you're about to have a warp core breach

@Kool - no one argues that hydro isn't an ideal energy source. Unfortunately, there's only so many rivers to dam, and there are ecological costs there as well (flooding valleys, keeping fish from spawning).

Hydro is definitely a source worth keeping, but by itself it wouldn't be possible to solve the world's energy problems. Even the Three Gorges Dam only delivers about 22K MW. The United States consumes around 500 MW

sorry, I meant 500,000 MW.

U.S. and most advanced industrial economies need to redirect their energy policies in a coordinated and diversified manner. nuclear power should be a part of that portfolio but i think it would be unwise to rely too heavily on any one source. for example, the u.s. has at least 100 years worth of natural gas supply within its own borders. we should begin to rely on it more heavily for electric power generation and fuel for transportation. its a much cleaner burning fuel with lower co2 emissions to boot. reducing our dependence on foreign oil will help to keep the cost of oil down. we should also aggressively pursue solar power. the economics are just coming into line with existing markets. the govt. needs to help out here. if we invest in an "energy marshall plan" that can be exported all over the world, we will see at least a 20 year economic boom in the united states. this will open up consumer markets all over the world. have to make the investment but its better than wasting the money on bailing out people that have no jobs because the economy is stagnating. the 2 biggest world problems that we face are growing population pressure and attendant energy scarcity. unless we're going to solve the second problem by drastically reducing the world population (unlikely absent some catastrophic event in the next several decades), then we must massively increase the availability and variety of energy options globally. western govt. and corporations are capable of doing this and i predict that they will. its in their interests to do so. it is essential for long-term economic growth. it will provide widespread economic benefits internationally.

I'm all for more nuclear power plants, and for reprocessing of spent fuel.

I'm also all for Solar and Wind power, especially rooftop solar, which helps get around the "you need X amount of space" problem.

Warsprite you said: "All this during the season when demand will at it's greatist (sic)" I don't know about where you live but where I live Summer is the time of year with BY FAR the most power consumption, and luckily enough that's also the time of year that Solar is most effective.

If I owned my house, I'd definitely be considering putting solar panels on my roof. Pay for themselves in 10 or so years, increase the value of the home, and help reduce the need for the incredibly dirty coal power plants nearby? Sign me up.

Luckily we can build new Nuke plants, AND put solar panels up on our roofs, thus reducing the need for so many of those Nuke plants. It's not an either or proposition (neither is it an either or proposition for wind, or hydro, or geothermal, or tidal, or any other energy source that might work well in any given area you're looking at). Let's just get off of the petroleum and coal addiction.

Oh, and of course conservation and energy efficiency are also an essential part of this equation, no matter where you live or how you get your power.

@stratagos - yeah, that is why I said where it is feasible, we definitely need a nuclear-like power source.

Hydro power is not quite as clean as many believe:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html

@spyman - I wouldn't say it is super clean, but it is eternal, there will always be a water cycle.

Please check this sight, and the "You Might Also Like" at the bottom of the page. Judging from many comments few have read much on the subject other than political commentry. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-new-types-of-reactors-needed-for-nuclear-renaissance