You say that nuclear is the best choice right now [emphasis yours], and yet you talk in terms of plans that will take decades to execute, and reactors that will last that long. Seriously, that's quite a disconnect, there, that reeks of spin-doctoring, not only to create the impression that the use of nuclear is only temporary but also thereby to downplay its negatives.
First, I don't appreciate your attitude toward me.
I haven't gone on the attack with anyone else here, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. The enemy isn't anyone who is offering an actual solution to our future power production problems - you OR me. It is the people in charge who are letting our current production dwindle and continuing to run decrepit plants while future demand continues to increase. Things are looking ugly if we don't get *something* real, looking at actual NEED vs actual production capacity, going Real Soon Now.
Second, there is no disconnect. Nuclear is a proven technology for base load production. And I'm not spin doctoring anything - I'll freely admit that nuclear might be here to stay under the scenario I'm describing, but only if other (hopefully even cleaner) technologies don't rise up in sufficient quantity to supplant it. Nor am I playing down negatives - when a plant is poorly built, poorly run, or built in a really dumb place, bad bad things can happen. But run properly, they are actually cleaner than most other techs available now, and certainly cleaner than any other proven base load tech available right now, save maybe hydro, which as gturner pointed out, is pretty much maxed out, not counting experimental variants that need time for proving.
Dude. I intended no hostility in my post, and certainly none directed towards you personally.
However, I did call the disconnect between your claim that nuclear is only a temporary solution and your advocacy of long-term plans. You admitted it. Rather than lead with the claim that nuclear is the best choice
right now, why not lead with the claim that it is the best choice for
the foreseeable future, since that is really what you're claiming?
If you can't count on other alternatives to save you from pushing for more nuclear power, then I can't count on other alternatives to save me from the world you would create.
Downplaying is actually a problem, because what's sold as cheap and ideal often in the end turns out to be expensive and problematic. Running things properly entails expense.
Also, you can't really ignore people in a democracy; all you can do is outvote them.
I guess it's a good thing we don't live in a democracy, then, isn't it? I'm being facetious here, but only barely, if you look at how our government is actually run. Unfortunately, not only is the democratic process corrupt and bent, but it is bent in the wrong direction to get things that need doing done: we should NOT be making these decisions based on the coal lobby, or the solar lobby, or whatever. We should be making them by figuring out what we need, and then figuring out the best way to fill that need.
Here's another disconnect right here. You say that the government is mired in corruption, and yet you want the expansion of nuclear power in the US to be placed directly in the hands of the same government. If I can't trust the government to represent the will of the people, then why should I trust the government to double nuclear power production while observing adequate safeguards? Or just how much are you proposing to increase nuclear power? Right now, in the US, only 20% of our electric energy comes from nuclear power. I believe that that's roughly half the level it would need to be at, to meet base load demand.
I would prefer to see an educated populace and government returned to the control of men and women who take their oath to serve the people and uphold the Constitution seriously, of course. But if that doesn't look likely, I would settle for now for someone or someones running things that can at least get the stuff that needs doing done!
So, let me get this straight. Of course, you want people to uphold the Constitution. Of course. But, you'll settle for people who can just get things done, and again you assure me and us that it would be just "for now". Yet another disconnect: sounds like you want a dictator! This
is where I start to get pissed off. Good to know that you aren't going on the attack!
Let's get one other thing straight. By proposing to get government involved, you are proposing how to spend
my tax dollars, too. In that sphere, I don't respond well to attempts to triangulate me, even if it is against "the man." Just to be clear, I've
underlined where you did that. The triangulation thing is a problem for me, because I'm not at all convinced that your interests and mine coincide.
So, if you expect nuclear not to be needed in the long-term, then what's next, and what's preventing us from investing in and developing that right now?
I
believe that we will expand the use of solar, and that some of these underwater hydro designs have potential, too. I would like to think that fusion (or even anti-matter) reactors will become feasible soon. Wind and deep geothermal may be viable in some select regions. But while I would love to see expansion and proving for those techs, I'm not willing to
gamble on any of those for our needs.
Don't assume, however, that I am against development of those techs by any means. My ideal would be to develop nuclear in sufficient quantities to fill our projected needs, but then actually only add it to the grid (a grid, btw, that also needs massive reworking) as needed to fill out what isn't provided by the technologies that we are still proving. I would like for us to *overproduce* - I think current projections are
low. Look into "the Internet of Things" and imagine the power requirements.
Frankly, I think that we're going to need to solve the energy crisis long before nuclear power could be workable in the US on any significantly larger scale than where it's at. I consider that a strong argument against going down the path to drastically expand nuclear power production. The energy problem needs to be attacked not only on the production side, but also by reducing consumption. We have a great incentive both to increase efficiency and, among other things, to eliminate certain types of household devices altogether, or to reduce the level at which they are used, by, e.g., washing dishes by hand, letting clothes air-dry, turning thermostats down, etc.
