While I do agree that we must move towards a system which runs off of nuclear power, I disagree with much of what you said, and I'm genuinely sorry because you're a good guy, but I absolutely have to tell you that what you've said is a horrible representation of science. We should avoid referring to "science" like a person. The scientists working on this project are to blame for the conclusions made, not an intangible concept. The reason why this should be avoided is because it starts creating the idea that the term "science" is a valid citation, and starts influencing people to accept things on faith rather than through a strict understanding. For instance, when the flat earth guy proposes a theory through skepticism, and he's called an idiot because "science proves him wrong," the idiot is within the person not being able to prove their own stance and rather accepting it with the assumption that other people know better than they do. Now, of course, you can mathematically verify spheres being the most geometrically stable objects, and the principle of least action, and a score of other real things that occur due to the spherical nature of Earth, but many people think it's okay to simply say "science." This is the exact dogma science looks to avoid by creating an epistemological dichotomy between itself and suspended faith. To the topic: Not renewable. The efficiency of power plants is necessarily low because they use a steam turbine rather than the actual energy displaced by the weak force. This, along with the fact that uranium is not actually infinite in terrestrial abundance, means that it is not renewable. Maybe if our power plants were breeder reactors, but they're not. I think that's probably what this article left out, that we would need reactors that we don't actually have in order to do this, and that said reactors are not economically viable or competitive until money is being [i]poured[/i] into them. You want nuclear power to be renewable and practical? Look at fusion. We're still a ways away from this though, but that's where we want to be. Don't get hung up on fission because it can never physically come close to doing what fusion can, which you can see simply in the difference of the strong force and the weak force. I'll tell you right now though, sea-water extraction of uranium will not be the end-all-be-all, and expending a massive effort towards this instead of fusion is a bad idea.