SO THEY CAN FILTER OUT AND RECYCLE MUCH OF THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN SPENT FUEL RODS?

I did not know that. I admit I have not done a lot of reading on nuclear energy, as I am much more interested in renewable energy and alternative energy.

I did a quick search and found this piece, very interesting.

The Missing Piece - ORNL Review Vol. 41, No. 1, 2008

The above piece states ........

Several studies have demonstrated that most of the spent fuel components can be recovered and recycled. Uranium represents about two-thirds of the U.S. spent fuel inventory, including residual fissile uranium-235 that can be recycled directly as fuel for heavy-water reactors or enriched again for use as fuel in lightwater reactors. The next largest component—roughly one-quarter of the total volume—is the zircaloy cladding. ORNL is working with an industrial consortium to explore recovery of zirconium from the cladding for reuse.

So, studies have demonstrated that........

This is great news, but it doesn't appear to be a done deal. ORNL is "working on" the recovery of zirconium. "Working on" is code for not there yet.

Still, do we really need more nuclear energy?

There are still dangers from nuclear reactors, no matter how small the odds of a major catastrophe, I for one, have no wish to live near a nuclear reactor.

While I am not totally against nuclear power, I just don't understand why so many people seem uninterested in investing in alternative energy. Wind turbines have made great strides in performance and with the heavy investment in Europe towards wind and solar, why do we lag so far behind?

It's like people have been told for so long that alternative energy is not economically feasible that they will not even CONSIDER it as a possibility.

Alternative energy is economically feasible and has many advantages. Nuclear power will only allow the monopoly over our energy production to continue. I would rather see more investment into newer technologies which would allow more smaller players to break into the industry.