Using oil, coal and gas for energy production is stupid, we're just wasting long chain hydrocarbons. In no place did I suggested that fossil energy production is a good idea. We should be building nuclear (the "unlike" part in my first post in this thread) and researching fusion.

You can't make breaks that can't fail, there will always be failures. This video may be 10 years old, I posted it because its the first result of a search, not because it was a truly bad disaster. But because the energy production is using so sparse power source, you need to cut corners to make it profitable, so I don't think this has the ability to become safer. Past 60 years of energy production from nuclear showed that nuclear is safe, wind still isn't even deployed in wide scale and we already see its shortcomings. Nuclear is getting safer every year, unlike all the other power generation methods. If people start living near them they will be killing more people than nuclear is, just because of the law of large numbers.
Oh, and usually aeroplanes don't fly at night, while turbines (try to) operate round the clock.
Those areas may be not uninhabitable, but so are the contaminated areas near Chernobyl and Fukushima.

but you only need so much space heating... And large scale geothermal isn't clean, it brings methane and heavy metals to the surface, some of them radioactive.

sign me in if it will search a 1TB data set in those 30min!

With current growth rate we will be using more energy than is radiated by Earth's core in 12 years and more energy than Sun radiates Earth with in 150 years. Are hose time scales so unreasonable?

Renewables are infeasible now, they will be insufficient in 150 years at the very best. We'd better be ready when this happens or the 1920's recession will look like being short few pennies at a supermarket.

That only excludes W key, the A and D keys are still pressed often, even if you're just running.

Fortunately all the battery packs take regular AA cells and make holding the camera a pleasure as an added bonus.

Loss of cooling is quite unlikely considering the amount of water used in CANDU, you can't just "boil it off", really.

And we would be doing just that if general public didn't have irrational fear of nuclear energy.

It is still area that can't be used for living or agriculture, if we don't want to use fossil fuels and renewables don't work out (if laws of thermodynamics hold to political pressure), we will need to build many, many more dams. Remember, the best spots are already taken.

Chernobyl Zone is the biggest national park in Europe in which animals thrive, your point?

I know you're joking, but the funny thing is we have already reached it:
humanity energy consumption 12TW
geothermal energy of whole Earth: 44TW
efficiency of power production from Geothermal: 20%
If current growth rate is sustained over next 12 years, we will be using more energy than the mantle is radiating.

Industrial solar has pathetic efficiency compared to other power sources (think 15% averaged over a year, not including the inefficiencies of the panels themselves, again in 15-20%). Small installations have even worse efficiency, they are wasting materials, especially for PV types.
As for wind:

How about: they fail catastrophically and are loud? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

Sun and geothermal aren't bottomless sources of energy, they are huge but not infinite. Why can't we call them sustainable? Oh, right, forgot that includes nuclear too. Move along.

Area under water behind a dam is uninhabitable and unarable, same goes with solar. Wind is just uninhabitable. If you count the amount of land required by them and compare to land made "uninhabitable" by nuclear, average over power generated, nuclear is a clear winner.

The radiation levels in Chernobyl Zone are lower than natural background radiation in some areas around the globe. Year of living in Ramsar in Iran exceeds nuclear industry limits during emergencies! Calling them "uninhabitable" for 1000 years is a bit of an overstatement... Unarable for food production, maybe, but then you can use those areas for production of automotive fuel.

Oh, and don't forget the amount of land made unarable and uninhabitable by heavy metal poisoning from regular industry, just look at mercury pollution in USA.

At least it doesn't go wrong every second it is generating energy, unlike fossil fuels... Or doesn't go wrong big time often, unlike hydro... And actually works round the clock, unlike "renewables".

They are proposing to burn this waste in those reactors not only to reduce the amount of it, but also to generate power from it. (that is fission burn, not the pathetic chemical burning mind you)