Furthermore, Prof. G., on the world scale the use of hydrocarbon fuels for dismantling nuclear reactors is incredibly tiny. It's so tiny that even if we ran out of fossil fuels we could easily manage the reactor disposal problem with biodiesel for the relatively small amount of hydrocarbon liquid fuels needed for such activities. Biodiesel won't scale to replace our current lifestyle but if we need only a few tens of million of barrels per year, we can easily produce that, and in a sustainable manner too.

Dear Prof. Goose,

I read this site much, and clearly understand we won't be running out of FF anytime soon, or ever, maybe. I did read the piece and am open to a discussion on nuclear power. I apologise if my comment suggests otherwise.

However:
By no means it is clear that what are now the major population centers that at present consume a lot of energy and which are the locations for future nuclear power plants, will have access to any FF in 60 years time.
Despite suggestions that we will have the equipment for mining , processing and transporting minerals for nuclear power plants, and the equipment to decommission these, all running on electricity, this underlying infrastructure is nowhere in place as far as I can tell. This will require a complete redesign, replacement, and extension of all present machinery used for these processes. Keep in mind that if we intend to get a good part of our electricity from nuclear power, we need to build many more stations then we have now.
I have also trouble with the costs that are mentioned. First, estimating now the costs of building a plant that will take several years to have completed is guaranteed to overrun the proposed budget.
Second, calculating 15 cts. per KwH for decommission costs 60 years from now is based on todays' economics and thus hard for me to see how it can apply to a situation so far ahead (though obviously something should be calculated).
Third, in calculating the costs for a nuclear power plant it is asumed the underlying infrastructure, i.e. the electrical grid to transmit the generated electricity, is in place. It is now, but it's old and vulnerable already. I think the grid needs some serious upgrading if men is to switch to more electric power (be it nuclear or otherwise) and less FF. All in all the economics seem a bit doubtfull.

Finally, the waste. There probably are ways to deal with this. Clearly stuff with a half life of thousands of years should be put away properly, and not like here in Holland at http://www.covra-nv.nl , which is at sealevel. Despite all the protective measures eventually these will wear out.

Nuclear power will probably stay part of an energymix if we intend to peacefully and gradually powerdown, but it has no future in the long run, and frankly, I feel it is a bit like playing God.

The high grade steel (and copper) of old nukes would be ideal for certain parts of wind turbines, geothermal power plants and hydro power plants (all with limited human contact).

What to do with the zirconium though ? (Nuke fuel rods are often built of zirconium from memory).