Equal by power-output, no. Equal by volume, to refine and get to JUST the right isotope, by volume I think it is. you can feel free to prove me wrong, but simply saying "your wrong' isn't proof.

And I will admit, I do like nuclear power, but no matter how you look at it, (Power/Time)/(Cost) Geothermal, gets more power, faster, will last longer, and, total yield by cost, geothermal beats nuclear power.

Yes, it is a pain to dig that deep, I never said that geothermal was the easiest power to get, just that it provides more, lasts longer, and is cheaper to maintain. If you look at a timeline of 5 years, yes, nuclear power is better, even fission is better in 5 years, but in 20+ years, Geothermal beats them all.

and as difficult to construct and manage the 'big-ass lightning rod' and 'magnet wheels' are, and how hazardous they are in the event of malfunction, they generate about as much if not more, than geothermal, in a facility of the same size, and, require less effort to construct... it just takes more expensive materials... and its dangerous... which is why I think having some sort of phd in physics or some crap should be necessary to even be a janitor in one of these places.

Oh, right, sorry. That was the one thing I forgot whilst I was editing my posts.
Anyway, for starters, geothermal energy is impractical in certain areas and, well, of course the inherent difficulty of sinking the few kilometre long hole in the ground. Then we get the inefficiency of transporting the power to populated areas. That's about it actually, anyone with more expertise (or more trust in wikipedia) is free to carry on.
Anyway back to my dispute (which I would like to point out in no way said you were wrong), nuclear fission requires enrichment of a mined material. A finite mined material.
Nuclear fusion generally requires deuterium and tritium, deuterium requires a rather energy intensive chemical system I believe but tritium requires a rather simpler method involving neutronic activation of lithium. Note rather, as in, comparatively.
Of course the problems with nuclear fusion is that currently the largest fusion reactor being built is really huge already and will barely produce power I believe... Feel free to correct me.
So I go back to the argument that no singular power source is perfect and therefore intelligent combination of power sourcs is neccessary.
Oh and if you didn't read my last post then I encourage you do so, and click on the link...

I am only doing this to point out 2 short things.



This is true of all power sources, and is in fact harder for nuclear power, because, residential areas around a nuclear power plant have to be planned and reduced according to plan, to allow for contingencies in the event of a melt-down. IE damage control.

I would also, 2ndly like to point out that, Nuclear power plants, are 80+% under-ground. Those HUGE squeezed in cylinders on top? those aren't the building. Those are giant chimneys... for lack of better words, it's the exhaust. the entire area is dug up, gigantic, several foot thick reactors must be constructed, AND HUGE water cooling intake must be built, with ample water supply, usually either from a nearby river, lake, ocean, or under-ground water-system. Man-made or artificial. I would expect that's more difficult than just digging a giant hole, since we already have drills designed just for that task, which can be used again and again, with the press of a button, and maybe re-fueling.

If Nuclear power, didn't require so much of an undertaking to make, provided better power, had More fuel supply, and no real waste, I'd probably side with it. The only real problem with geothermal energy is that its a huge undertaking.

It has 1 problem, while all other power sources, including the green ones, have more problems, and don't provide as much energy.


But.... noone really cares, because its not like i'm building a geothermal power facility in the back yard of my 2-bedroom apartment or anything.

Wait, American apartments have backyards?...
And every action, by definition has "real waste". Geothermal Power included.
Furthermore, geothermal power is more complicated than just "digging a giant hole". Pipes must be built that are able to withstand both the intense heat, high pressure and often corrosive impure water. The temperatures obtained, which are lower than most other methods involving steam turbines, cause higher inefficiency than other methods of power generation.

Oh yeah and
1st point, better safety systems reduce the need for this. One example is a Chinese system wherein the reaction relies on the cooling system (this is fission by the way) and if the cooling system is turned off then the reaction ceases, preventing the possibility of a meltdown.
Of course I concede you have made a good point.
2nd point. I totally agree with you. Nobody wants what is essentially a power source based on controlling potentially massive explosions above ground because it would flatten the area in the event of a confinement coil malfunction (however unlikely, note that this is fusion -_-", I really need to write more clearly) so you bury it. Then you work out that the steam for the generators needs a massive area to cool down, something you don't have underground.
Human solution? Put the b<medium expletive referring to being covered in or relating to blood>y thing halfway into the ground.

um.... 2 things. you just WAY extrapolated on things that you didn't have to.

All I was saying is, Geothermal and nuclear power are both huge holes in the ground, a huge undertaking. They both have advanced machinery in them, and parts must be replaced often. The main difference, is that in addition to repairs and maintenance, the nuclear power requires purchasing fuel, which geothermal does not require, AND in the event of a malfucntion of some sort, Nuclear power is more of a hazard.

2ndly, No, Apartment complexes in the US do not have back-yards, I was making a funny, although I have seen apartments that are basically just a small house, and those do actually have yards.... O_O