Your stance on nuclear power

[Thorn]

A "nuclear winter" would solve global warming.
Wouldn't matter anyway if we were all extinct.

SEE PERFECT LOGIC!

[germanos]

How much fuel exists?

From wiki:
A prominent use of uranium from mining is as fuel for nuclear power plants. As of 2008, known uranium ore resources that can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about a century, based on current consumption rates.

And:

Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world's energy and 13–14% of the world's electricity.

My conclusion therefore is that nuclear energy is not a viable alternative for our energy needs. It could serve as a shortlived plug untill we transit to a more permanent solution. Given current considerable risks I'd rather see the major investments required to build and exploit nuclear energy be invested in the alternatives we are going to need very soon anyway (in our lifetime for practically all posters) and skip the dangerous plug.

So I voted for close them all. And that is mainly because the projected lifetime of current reactors is extended in many places (although for instance Germany is now reconsidering to reverse that decision they made a while ago) and the option 'stop building but keep what we got' is likely to lead to extended lifetimes of the older designs.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

this is called selective reading from Wiki

The world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of USD$130/kg, are enough to last for some 80 years at current consumption.[3]

In 1983, physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that the world supply of uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a form of renewable energy.[5][6] He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by naturally-replenished uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years.[5] These reactors use uranium-238, which is more common than the uranium-235 required by conventional reactors.

[dannubis]

Thorium based breeder reactors

[OneFootInTheGrave]

India

[Arrian]

Option #2, within reason.

It also is probably a good idea to at least try to place them such that prevailing winds don't blow directly over whichever big city is nearby, just in case.

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

I'm pro but probably a local NIMBY if push comes to shove.

[MikeH]

Fusion will be great.

[Docfeelgood]

I agree that nuclear power is a necessity.

[SpencerH]

Build more. Supervise them very closely. Hang anyone deceiving the safety regulators, starting with the company CEO's.

[dannubis]

... in the reactor vessel.

[Jon Miller]

This is interesting:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/nuclear_energy?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/riskmeltdown

JM

[Cort Haus]

Cobalt Thorium G

[Whoha]

Leave our nuclear power as is atleast as far as civilian power generation is concerned.

[Perfection]

I STILL STAND BY NUCLEAR POWER, EVEN JAPANESE NUCLEAR POWER, IF HONDA MAKES A NUCLEAR POWERED CAR, I'M BUYING IT.