Call me naive, but what's the big deal about fission as opposed to fusion? The waste?
Yup. With nuclear fission waste comes the BIG $ signs attached to it to either 1) bury it in the ground and hope geologic forces don't expose it, let's say, for the next 5,000 to 10,000 years or, 2) shoot it into space (which is a viable option since the Sun is a big nuclear reactor and cosmic radiation is ever present once you're out of the Van Allen Belt) or, 3) keep it at a safe (& secure?) storage facility for the remainder of its radioactive life (again, let's say 5,000 to 10,000 years, depending).
I needn't calculate the cost of maintenance from choice #3 as it should be fairly obvious this number would dwarf the combined GDP of every country on this planet today. Choice #1 is expensive too, even if we choose not to be more diligent than to assume that someone 5,000 years in the future is going to "just know" what a nuclear danger sign looks like....
Whatever choice you choose, you still have to add the BIG $'s for the political wrangling of all 3 options and the difficulty of delivering the material through someone's backyard to get it to its final destination.
Nuclear fusion, theoretically, wouldn't create the same quantity of harmful waste that fission does. However, I won't go so far as to say fusion will produce "no" waste. Since vaible fusion reactors don't exist yet it would be irresponsible to say they won't produce waste at all.
If someone out there thinks I'm whining here about nuclear fission power, the fact cannot be disputed that there will ALWAYS be someone who will vigorously refuse to let the waste go through there backyard.
However, I will conceed that solar, wind, and hydrogen power structures will also have an enormous cost associated with them. The problem remains that "reasonable" fossil fuel production is expected to peak in 10 to 40 years, which means that once half of the fuel has been extracted the remaining second half will only get more and more expensive as the resource is eventually depleted. If we choose not to do anything to head off this possibility then costs for fossil fuels will also become suffocating.
If this concerns you then contact your state and federal representatives and tell them it is time they provided REAL tax incentives for RESIDENTIAL (or consumer) purchasers of alternative (not just solar) power. Why should only the corporate sector get tax breaks for installing alternative power sources? (See Are incentives available to help reduce the cost?
That's my 2 cents worth - AND advise! (how 'bout that - bitching with a solution!)