I have build this sort of small system for our summer home. It's off grid place and has 12v 400ah batteries. This is just small 300w unit but in future I'm going to replace it with bigger. This whole project is kind of made with stuff I have been able to gather for cheap. Got the mast at work for free.

And thereby lies the problem. The stuff is dangerous for thousands of years. Don't get that problem with wind or hydro.

Misconception, Only about 3% of the waste remains that radioactive for that long, the rest can be recycled, or disposed of after as little as 40 to 50 years.

The biggest problem with nuclear power is what to do with used fuel. Many countries that use nuclear power has not come up with final solution how to and where to storage the spent nuclear fuel safely.

If a country does not have it's own storage centers, It will likely transport it to one of the many that other countries are in control of..

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx


Thousands of years is a bit of an overstatement.

Thousands of years is an overstatement.

I'd just as soon not take the risk, thanks all the same.

if we lived in a less chaotic and evil world, I'd feel good about nuclear power.  it is an awesome resource for powering our (USA) aircraft carriers and submarines and yes, even power plants (when they are located in areas not prone to earth quakes and near oceans/rivers) but there is great evil in the world, so many who want to use that power to harm others.  I say that with full knowledge of what we (USA) did to end the war in Japan in WWII.  I'm not a full blown tree hugger, but I do care about the environment and love nature.  I have high hopes for renewable energy continuing to evolve for practicality and also the safety factor of it improving. 

Misconception, Only about 3% of the waste remains that radioactive for that long, the rest can be recycled, or disposed of after as little as 40 to 50 years.
If a country does not have it's own storage centers, It will likely transport it to one of the many that other countries are in control of..

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx


Thousands of years is a bit of an overstatement.

3% of the waste staying radioactive for a long period of time is still 3% too much IMO and even 40 to 50 years is too long considering the life span of Governments the world over.

Considering the prevalence of terrorism in the world the idea of transporting nuclear waste by sea or land fills me with horror.!!

The problem with spent nuclear fuel is, even the "3%" (in reality it is way lower figure, but the problem remains the same) long lived of the remaining radioactive material is diluted over the volume of the all load and makes the whole load dangerous for very long.

Yes, the fuel may be reprocessed to reclaim the remaining fission material (at the end what makes the fuel "spent" is not the lack of the fissionable material, but the contamination by the fission products, that tend to "poison" the internal nuclear environment of the reactor and make the reaction impossible to sustain without widening the reactors control range to unsafe range).
Yes there  are possibilities to "reprocess" the fuel, but that means handling with separated Plutonium compounds (risk of some material being smuggled out of the facility and misused for weapons, so these operations are highly restricted by the nuclear nonproliferation treaties) and mainly because the process generates a lot of waste, what becomes contaminated by the radioactive elements so much, the resulting amount of dangerous waste to dispose of is not much lower than when disposing of the complete spend fuel.
Some reprocessing methods having the Plutonium mixed with Uranium for the whole process (so unusable for weapons) were recently (about a decade ago) announced, but I have not noticed any commercial installation of that. My guess, this process is way less efficient (mainly in concentrating the unusable radioactive elements into minimum amount of waste without contaminating a lot of other material in the process)

But still I see this as way less evil than the huge piles of soot from the coal fired plants, which at the end release into the biosphere (in the better case into the soot dump ponds, worse case directly from the chimney into the atmosphere) way more radioactivity than just milling and blowing into the wind all spend fuel from a nuclear plant delivering the same power. Yet no "anti nuclear activist" noticed that at all. The only thing different in the nuclear reactor waste is, all that mess is rather concentrated into very small amount of waste (per the energy produced) and under very extensive regulatory scrutiny.

I have a wind generator back home, being I'm off-grid.  Does that count?

I have a wind generator back home, being I'm off-grid.  Does that count?

Why not?
That is the only type of installation that makes real sense in reducing the environment load: Less material spent and less environmental disturbance than a long feed wire lane...

There is now a floating windfarm quite near to us and will produce a lot of energy.

Here is the Wikipedia article all about it.

There is now a floating windfarm quite near to us and will produce a lot of energy.

Here is the Wikipedia article all about it.

And Donald Trump didn't like it one little bit