...the rich at the expense of the poor, so maybe they can throw some crumbs from their useless industry at the poor.

If you're working two or three jobs at minimum wage to pay your electricity bill, because of "feed in tarriffs" you're not putting $50,000 worth of solar cells on the roof of your McMansion to generate $10.00 worth of electricity every day for tax breaks.

Mark my words, when the solar cells on those McMansion roofs become more electronic waste, the "recycling" strategy for handling those toxic materials is going to fall on the poorest of the poor, who will have to breathe cadmium dust, indium, selenium and tellurium so that the same smug rich people who foisted this very, very, very, very bad idea on humanity can claim that their trash is "recycled."

The rich won't be in those factories, though probably they'll own them.

The solar industry is a disgrace.

Humanity spent close to 1 trillion dollars on it in the last ten years, and it doesn't produce even two of the 560 exajoules humanity consumes each year.

It's a tremendous failure, but it is supported by rote superficial thinking and a lack of education and reflection.

If one is truly against fossil fuels - and I am, as I favor a 100% nuclear energy source - one does not support a technology that requires back up by dangerous fossil fuels, in particular, dangerous natural gas. All future generations will have to pay for the tragedy that our natural gas practices today will leave behind.

Dangerous natural gas, and not so called "renewable energy" is the fastest growing source of electricity in this country and the world.

This is a tragedy. Part of the cause of this tragedy is the faith based attempt to promote a technology that, um, doesn't work very well.

The solar industry will never be as sustainable, as affordable, as safe, and as reliable as the nuclear industry.

to store its' waste for hundreds of thousands of years. And I thought if it is all nuclear then how dangerous will it be to store all that nuclear waste. Then Fukushima happened. My brothers lives in Japan.

than a monitored fuel rod.

This is particularly true because solar cells are distributed, as are all other electronic wastes, and thus their collection after they've become useless - not that they're really useful now - is likely to be inefficient and leaky.

By contrast, nuclear fuels have a very high energy density and are not distributed. They are the only energy by products of any energy industry, including the awful solar industry, that can be safely contained at their point of use indefinitely.

I oppose however, their storage, on the grounds that used nuclear fuel is too valuable to be under utilized.

My contention is that there is no such thing as "nuclear waste," since there are zero components of used nuclear fuel that are without potential value.

It's certainly not my fault that this unfortunate meme of "storing nuclear waste" has gained credence, albeit very, very, very, very toxic credence.

If you are concerned about so called "nuclear waste," because "someone pointed out" that you "need to store its wastes" for thousands of years, you haven't thought very much about the topic at all on any serious level.

The people who complain the most about so called "nuclear waste" are usually spectacularly uninterested in the fact that dangerous fossil fuel wastes in the form of air pollution, kills about 7 million people per year. What's ironic is that if the storage of used nuclear fuel killed one one millionth as many people, seven people, hundreds of thousands of metric tons of dangerous fossil fuel wastes would be released to complain about it. This might be called the "Fukushima syndrome." I strongly suspect that the electricity generated to run computers to complain about Fukushima released more toxic dangerous fossil fuel waste and thus killed more people than radiation ever did or will.

I will now repeat some elements of a recent comment I just made elsewhere: