I wish I could capture the essence of my argument for power in such a way to tell you that I really really (really) want cheap and clean power.

“the goal is NOT TO PRODUCE ANY KIND OF WASTES!!” — I totally agree with this.

“NUCLEAR PLANTS SUCK!!!!!” — If I must agree that nuclear plants suck, then I would do so by saying “everything else that can provide as much power sucks worse, or is unavailable with our current understanding of science and manufacturing — the promised technologies continue to elude us. So please, Science, give us more options – but in the mean time, don't do something worse than nuclear, to our planet – which we clearly are.”

Harvesting geothermal energy is fantastic in the places that it's possible. I'm glad to hear you're in such a place. My arguments are not wrong because you have access to geothermal power. If I thought for a moment that it was practical to power all of civilization with the same method, I'd be yelling for it loudly. Iceland is another country which benefits greatly from geothermal energy, and I'm in envy of that. Sadly, over my region, looking downwards will show nothing but cold water and rock.

Another example, if I thought it would be economical to harvest tidal energy with tidal turbines I'd be saying that. Another great concept, but yet another thing that won't get us what we need. There are so many of these concepts which aren't even on the table, options-wise.

The fact is that people in most of the world are not choosing between nuclear and geothermal. They're choosing between nuclear and fossil fuels. Many companies offset as much as they can afford to with wind/solar/other – the government might pay to help them afford it and at the same time demand that they do it – but it's clear that it these alternative options are not a viable solution for all of our power requirements.

Between fossil fuels and nuclear, there should be no doubt which one is cleaner, and why I choose what I do between them. One of these has all of the waste contained, and the other has much of the waste not contained. One puts that which would harm us somewhere where it won't harm us, and the other puts that which would harm us directly into the air we breathe. Nuclear plants make bad stuff which we can take care of, and fossil fuel plants make bad stuff which we cannot and do not take care of. The environment in Ecuador is harmed by coal/gas plants in the United States, but the environment in Ecuador is not harmed by nuclear plants in the United States.

I'm not sure I understand the last comments. I'm educated (engineer) and employed, and I tinker with building things such as solar panels and wind turbines (which I recognize I lose money by doing) — these facts help me make decisions, and why I hold strange and unpopular views like “dead batteries are more of a problem for us than nuclear waste.”

Salud,

jl

Here's another twist on this topic, and how we 'think wrong' about clean power. We like electric power, right? The problem with storing our own electric power (from sun and wind) is batteries. Do you properly dispose of even your AA batteries? If so, good job. Can you count on your neighbor to dispose of his batteries? Most people do not recycle batteries. Imagine a world where all our houses and cars run on many large (and expensive) deep-cycle batteries, being switched out every 10-20 years. This causes much more of a waste problem (as batteries are very explosive, corrosive things). I contend that batteries are more of a waste problem than the waste we worry about with nuclear power, as battery chemicals DO end up in local landfills and local drinking supplies, whereas nuclear waste does not.

To answer your other question, I would rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant, which is the only alternative at the moment.

“There are always emissions of radioactive particles around there.” There are? Not that I agree with what you're meaning, since there's nothing to check, but it's a true statement. See, emissions of radioactive particles come out of hospitals and the sun, too – would you wager they don't come out of coal plants? If you want random heresay, I've listened to claims that radioactivity out of coal plants is HIGHER than out of nuclear plants – google that if you like, though I'm not gonna get into this part of the discussion because it's not worth it. Long story short, coal is very messy and hard to deny that. We have to quibble over miscellaneous trivia and not-well understood science (by the layperson) and cut through years of propaganda and fear to talk about how actually clean/dirty nuclear plants are. We have to hear things like “not in my backyard”. Why rhetoric? It's time for another look at nuclear, as it should be more than obvious that fossil fuel plants spew out toxins and carbon monoxide, which mother earth doesn't like. Though, if you're also implying that since there's scary particles from current nuclear plants, that we should build new ones with modern technology to reduce said scary particles, then I would agree whole-heartedly as it would be worth it for the much cleaner power.