>>>>> If you don't like my solutions then post your own.
>>>>> Either lead follow or get out of the way.
>>>> Nuclear power.
>>> Show yer calculations including the cost of stainless steel.
>> Who are you to demand such? When you are challenged all that you do is bluster.
>> The nuclear powerplants operating in the US are making
>> huge piles of profits, while paying into the disposal pool.
And the obvious approach on disposal is to design them so they can
be filled with concrete etc when they have passed their useby date
and leave them where they be and build the new one adjacent.
>>>> Follow along, or get out of the way.
>>> Where's the leadership?
>>>> Nuclear proliferation is a non-issue for nuclear power.
>>> At least not in the U. S. where every WalMart has MX missiles.
>>>> It is an issue in global affairs, but it is distinct from nuclear power. ?
>>> Yer floggin' a dead horse.
>>>> The number of nuclear power generating reactors needed by the Manhattan
>>>> Project was zero. ?The only link between nuclear power and nuclear
>>>> proliferation is as a supply of electricity to the enrichment
>>>> plant. The israelis still have not built a power reactor, and the
>>>> canadians have been looking at peaceful nuclear reactor
>>>> applications for over sixty years-- with no bombs built!
>>> Not that I have anything against nukes but if you digress too much
>>> then you won't git them to believe you are a leader.
>> if you have nothing against nukes, why are you not trying to promote it?
>>>> The science of waste disposal has long since been solved. ?The
>>>> political problem of waste disposal is being held up by
>>>> environmentalists for no good scientific reason-- they just want to
>>>> stop nuclear power (and force us to burn coal).
>>>> Nuclear power will allow you to power those electric tractors that
>>>> you are so fond of.
>>> Actually solar will do just fine.
>> The required collector area 4 square meters for every three
>> kilowatt*hours, divided by the charge time in hours and divided again
>> by the efficiency of the collector. A full battery charge must be
>> collected within the time that a charge is used, or the tractor will
>> be sidelined for lack of energy. The rooftops of the typical
>> collection of farmhouse, barn, and outbuildings will not have enough
>> area to support it all.
>>>> Without the cheap electricity that nuclear power is proven to be
>>>> able to deliver, voters will have to choose between burning coal,
>>>> or a drastically reduced standard of living. ?Short of an
>>>> environmentalist dictatorship, we can be fairly certain of
>>>> increased coal burning, with global warming prevention abandoned
>>>> as 'too expensive'.
>>>> The hydrogen economy is stymied by electricity being too expensive.
>>>> Nuclear power will solve that problem.
>>> The real problem is a cheap battery.
>> A cheap battery is a useless lump without energy to charge it.
>> Electrifying the transport sector will require a many-fold increase
>> in the electrical power grid. Natural gas has the problem that it
>> will also run out, so we are stuck with nuclear, so we may as well
>> make a virtue out of necessity.
> The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
> environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology.
It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island.
> France has lots of nuclear plants, and that's because they were
> not tied to phony arguments about the wonderful private sector.
Nope, because they have fewer viable alternatives. Japan too.
> If you want the gummint to subsidize nuclear plants (which
> it does, in various ways,) then you should hire the socialist
> Frenchies to build and run them in their terribly inefficient
> socialist top-down regulated and uniform manner.
Or dont bother with the socialists and do it the way the Japs did it with the rightards doing it.
> And now that I think about it, I guess they aren't so
> inefficient, since they have no problem relying on
> nuclear power for what---80%% of their electricity?
> The other problem that you have with nuclear as a solution
> to CO2 or other issues is that you just can't build the things
> fast enough, even if you streamline the regulatory process.
Wrong, the frogs have managed to do that fine.
> You have to get an enormous amount of capital together,
Nope.
> you need stuff like cement (big CO2 source),
Nothing like the coal fired power station it replaces would be.
> you need qualified welders,
It was perfectly possible to train far more of those than would ever
be needed for nukes during WW2. Many of them women even.
> and on and on.
Nope, there is no on and on.
> In the short term of 20-30 years the absolute easiest,
> cheapest and largest improvement would come from
> conservation and efficiency. No need for new tech.
No need for new tech with nukes either.
> Oh yeah and maybe some reduction in birth rates.
Nope, not one modern first world country is even self replacing on population now if you take out migration.
