Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but nothing
can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as far into the
future as you want to project. The only truly viable competitor, and only for
major power stations, is nuclear -- provided the cost of safety can be
reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in North America who was alive when
Chernobyl melted down has strontium and cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from
that accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent" fuel pellets. With
half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT
may be that there is no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of cost.
Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core that is no longer viable after years
of being bombarded by radiation? Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts
of energy relative to its mass, but...