I've said I'm in favor of nuclear power before, now tree huggers are not as opposed

"It's not that something new and important and good had happened with nuclear, it's that something new and important and bad has happened with climate change," says environmentalist Stewart Brand, who recently authored a controversial article on the topic in the May issue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review.

Brand has joined a small but growing cadre of environmentalists, which includes Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies dean James Gustave Speth and World Resources Institute head honcho Jonathan Lash, in touting new, cleaner, safer nuclear technologies as a solution to the vexing problem of how to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels before solar and other renewables are ready to take up the slack. Together, alternative renewables account for less than 2 percent of the nation's energy production, while nuclear power contributes ten times as much power to the grid today. ok, sounds good

BUT

And in a new twist, Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) has reportedly added language to the climate change bill he is drafting with Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) that calls for major federal subsidies to pay the cost of developing new nuclear energy technologies to lessen our nation's dependence on fossil fuels, (Emagazine.com) You know if John McCain's involved, he's trying to stab consrevatives in the back- somehow.


What the problem has been -long term with nukes is the spent fuel; no one is in agreement with what to do with it. My question is WHY do we have to store it here, on earth? Park it in a far orbit, or send it into the sun; the worst we could send up thereinto the swirling radiation would be as weak as sweat-comparetivly. If you're worried about the stuff not making it into space, use something tried and true.