In 2003 an MIT interdisciplinary panel evaluated nuclear power, including reprocessing. It concluded that reprocessing is not currently economical. Has something changed since then?

Even if the people who make the electricy could do it very cheaply, they wont sell it cheaply. The way capitalism works is that the final price is determined by the supply and demand, not the original cost.

Drilling oil probably only costs a few dollars per barrel but the oil companies sell it for as high a price as they can.

Good idea. We shall build it near blanding...

Here! Here! Clean inexpensive nuclear power has always been the way to go we just have to hope that the people will not vote Democrat because they will never allow energy to ever be cheap.

"On the drawing boards at the Department of Energy is the Integrated Fast Reactor — a nuclear plant that produces more atomic fuel than it uses."

The thesis of this letter is generally correct, but it seems to me that relying on the development of a machine that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics isn't an especially wise strategy.

if your plan of cheap electricity were to be implimented,

1) how would terrorists get funded? they are dependent on oil revenues

2) how would bible prophesies about armagettan get fulfilled? these require a world dependent on middle east oil.

3) How would newspapers sell, these require wars and rumors of wars, and these require that we be dependent on oil outside our borders.

So Mr Smarty pants, before you put out what seems like a slam dunk idea, think about the consequences and the people it would hurt

I am not familiar with this IFR thing, I admit, so I cannot speak to its merits.

But that last part of the letter was a jewel: "We cannot use this technology because the politicians do not trust the scientists, the public does not trust the politicians and the environmentalists are paranoid."

Electricity from wind even if it is not as cheap (yet) as electricity from depletable resources is still a good idea. Wind is a limitless source of energy that is clean, can employ people in this country, and keeps our energy dollars in this country, can't be shut off by foreign powers and will not run out as many oil fields have already been depleted. Same goes for geothermal power.

Imported oil should be taxed at 1% or 2% to support alternative forms of energy. This would put the United States on a more sure and safe footing.

Brazil is nearly powered completely on alternative fuel. Why we need to revert to Nuclear Power, and the waste that will be left over, is beyond me.

The main beneficiaries of Nuclear power live on the East Coast. Will they, therefore, be willing to store their own waste in their own states? Clearly not.

If you don't believe that trucks or trains carrying waste with drivers text messenging across the nation isn't a hazard, or a target for terrorists, then you're delusional.

Look for solar, wind, and water as ways to provide energy. Clearly, installing some solar panels in the west desert, turbines on our dams, and a few windmills high in the windy mountains would help ease our dependence upon natural gas and oil.

Yes, we need cheap electricity, but we're not going to have it with coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Coal will face steep carbon taxes in the near future; natural gas prices are escalating as we start producing more electricity, heating and now T.Boone Pickens-style CNG cars; and nuclear will continue to escalate due to the costs of managing/transporting/guarding waste for time and eternity. The real solution is more renewables, which are price stable. Wind and sunlight are free, and once infrastructure is established, the lack of fuel costs allows utilities to price these sources of power at a flat, predictable cost. Geothermal is an excellent substitute for coal because it can go 24/7. The other piece of the solution is energy efficiency -- the cheapest source of power is the power you never use! Green buildings can drastically cut energy use, and some evidence indicates that going green can attract buyers better than traditional, bloated, poorly constructed homes that are inefficient. Wind power is creating jobs in rural America. With plug-in cars set to be launched in two years, the future for electricity looks bright for America!

As soon as we get past our paranoia of nuclear power we will be able to move forward. Nuclear power is not cheap, but is cheaper than solar or wind power and is able to produce power safely 24/7 while wind and solar have limits when the can produce electricity. Nuclear produced electricity is only expensive when being compared to that produced by coal.

Since construction of new coal fired plants has been stalled due to "global warming," we will soon find ourselves in a crisis similar to the oil crisis we now find ourselves in. Of course we will all cry and complain. We will be asked to conserve, but that will be of little consolation on a hot July evening when rolling blackouts begin to shut down our air conditioners. We will have bigger problems when these rolling blackouts shut down the office buildings and manufacturing where we work.

I am a retired Navy Pilot and have lived and worked within feet of nuclear reactors on the USS. Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan. There have been zero nuclear accidents in the United States that have injured people during the 50 years of its use.

This opinion writer is exactly right. For those that say nuclear power is expensive they are right, but only compared to coal, hydro, or geothermal, and at present natural gas. However, as more natural gas is used it will force the price higher. Nuclear power is cheaper than wind or solar power, because it can provide a continuous supply. Wind and solar depend on sun and climate conditions, and will never be able to produce the electricity to power future cars, and heat our homes as the price of natural gas increases with demand and future limits of supply, as we now see happening with oil.

Nuclear power has an infinitely better safety record than coal. Hundreds of coal miners have been killed in the United States during the 50 years that reactors have been producing electricity, while there have been zero nuclear accidents that have injured people. There were no injuries at Three Mile Island.

We need to get over this nuclear paranoia or be left in the dust of progress. France for example produces 80% of its electrical needs with nuclear power, and now India is making a huge expansion of its program.

Good comments from Stewart and Navy Pilot. I find it amazing how Idologues from both parties eschew science when it dosen't fit their agenda. All avenues of technology need to be explored and tried. Drill now and extract all oil for now, but at the same time, explore all other rescources of energy. Times are tough now and they will get tougher. We need to deal with it in the best way possible. COOPERATION!

@ 2:46

Sorry, you missed the point. The main fear against Nuclear power has nothing to do with the possibility of meltdown. But has everything to do with the very real reality of storing radioactive waste that has a half-life of thousands of years.