If the claim that plutonium byproducts aren't hazardous is the basis for your argument that nuclear waste disposal isn't a factor, then I already know that I don't need to consider the rest of it.

I was speaking with respect to radiation. Plutonium is known to be toxic. So yes, they must be controlled in that respect. It also has a proliferation concern, which I also did not bring up.

However, you seem to be unable to connection the pieces of the puzzle. Many others here have given you more than you need to know on how to deal with plutonium and other waste products. You just can't seem to connect the dots so you rather lash out at the entire issue with these little snippets of analysis as if each is a knell to the idea. Something that seems to be a problem these days on all sorts of issues actually.

The waste issue is the most mis-represented issue of Nuclear power. People jump on the bandwagon of "it lasts for a million years!" argument, which is overly simplistic. The problem is that it's difficult to discuss without going into the details of the chemistry and physics going on with respect to waste. What comes out of coal stacks is probably equally difficult but nuclear is easier since it's easy to visualize the barrels of glowing green goo (which is also false).

Basically, there are many different types of byproducts from spent nuclear fuel, most of which (~90%) is plain old Uranium 238, which isn't a problem. The stuff people need to worry about is not the Plutonium or Uranium that lasts for millions of years, it's the Scrontium and Iodine isotopes that have half lives of 20-50 years. The half-life is key to understanding the intensity of the radiation given off. A pound of something that decays in 20 years is much more dangerous than one pound of something else that decays in 1 million. These short half-life isotopes are much more dangerous to humans than longer ones but if controlled, are not a problem after the time frame of half a human life. There are many other specifics like this that are difficult to communicate to the average citizen. So activist groups easily use the million year argument to frighten people that their babies will all have 3 arms and such, when that's not really the full truth. But it works wonders for mobilizing people against the industry.

As many have somewhat mentioned here, the waste situation is manageable and there are several solutions that can be employed. The topic of this article, cost, is actually more problematic than waste disposal however, this article doesn't analyze it properly to be of any value.

Cost is the primary issue with Nuclear even with waste and other issues people bring up. However, this piece seems like another hit job on the nuclear power industry while supporting wind and solar, as always.

I'll agree, costs of nuclear power plants are an issue and they must be brought in line with other forms of energy. However, you cannot discount an energy production method on the basis of one dimension of analysis alone.

First, all forms of energy production leave an ecological footprint. You cannot escape that fact. But for pro-solar/wind people, nuclear is the first one they take a swing at while 50% of the country is powered by coal. Cheap to put up, cheap to fuel, oh, but spews toxic gas into the air.

Secondly, technologically solar and wind are not at the point where they can support our energy needs. Even if you covered Arizona with solar panels, it's still not a solution. Current energy projections do not give renewables over 10% of the total energy production of the country. There are reasons for this.

As far as waste disposal, Nuclear actually controls 100% of its waste. For every kilowatt produced and sold, a portion of that revenue goes back into a fund that is to manage the waste. Coal certainly does not and while many would argue that there is no waste from Solar and Wind, there is and it does not control this either.

The global warming gases produced from nuclear are 0. Compare that with other forms of energy, and this is yet another area where one could debate in favor of nuclear power.

As far as Uranium costs, the U.S. has not reprocessed spent fuel since the Carter administration. This was largely due to nuclear weapon proliferation concerns however, cost was also another factor. Uranium is still cheaper to buy and use in a once-through cycle than reprocessing it, separating the plutonium and U-235 (which a LWR reactor needs ~4% to run) out and reinserting it back into the power plant. We have the technology, we choose not to use it. Of course there are reprocessing costs, but this also would reduce the amount of waste requiring storage. France, Japan, and Russia all reprocess currently.

In the end, this article really just chooses one dimension of policy analysis to beat up on Nuclear power again, which makes little sense. You need a full spectrum of criteria to analyze, then create a final conclusion taking into account all criteria for a particular energy policy. This certainly does not do it.

On a final note, if anti-nuclear writers put half as much effort into looking at and tearing apart coal energy, they would do much more for the global warming debate than using nuclear power as their punching bag.