A bit wet

[IQS.RLOW]

For every carbon emission you try and save, I will burn some sump oil.

It won't cost me anything and it will negate anything you fucks think you are trying to achieve

[Ethnic]

Hopefully the states will eventually introduce a pro rata system - which has been talked about for years and will apply to those like yourself IQ who refuse to make an effort to cut down on their consumption. If you enjoy being poisoned by radiation in order to maintain your comfort zone - that's your choice and you'll certainly pay for it in more ways than one.

Here we go folks. The inner totalitarian of your average Greens member/voter - "Do what we say or be severely punished and, while you're at it, shut the fuck up while you're paying more taxes and subsidies for useless green technology while we fly around the world on greenhouse-gas belching planes, live in energy/water-thirsty homes and take donations from wealthy businessmen while criticising other parties for doing just that."

[Outlaw Yogi]

The nuke industry won't invest its own money in nuke power for a very practical reason, nuke power isn't practical. Its a subsidy scam. Nuke power doesn't exist anywhere on Earth without massive government subsidy patronage.

Like solar "anything" isn't? The only difference between them is that solar is far less efficient

Solar IS the most economically viable and the most efficient for cost.
If the $9 billion a year subsidies to the coal industry dried up or were abolished, nothing comes close to the economic viability of solar, and nuke still wouldn't compete with any other option available.
Coal burning has a 44% efficiency rating, burning gas has a 40 to 46% efficiency rating, light water reactors have a 35% efficiency rating, 4th gen Fast Breeder reactors JM's advocating are touted as being expected to be able give a 41% efficiency rating, but won't be available till 2030.
Solar thermal at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico has a 31.25% efficiency rating, and the fuel is FREE

[Outlaw Yogi]

Nuclear power is the only realistic way we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions. Gen4 is safe enough and produces very little waste.

Nuke power isn't realistic because its ridiculously expensive and fuel processing is GHG emission intensive.

One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology. He argues that "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".[4] As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not"

[IQS.RLOW]

Solar thermal at Sandia National Laboratories,

Two words- test. facility

If they were viable, they would be operating. They aren't so they are not

[Jovial Monk]

You mean the space sails?

How would we get the energy back to Earth?

Not that far away from being able to have a space elevator, then can run power cables down from space to Earth. No other way is efficient enough.

By the time we get our nuclear reactors I think the technology will be mature and staff trained etc.

Also, we may work out how to use fusion (rather than fission) to generate power which would be ideal and may be scaleable enough to drive your car: a litre of distilled water may be the only fuel you will need over 10 years of use.

Neither space elevators nor fusion can be relied on tho: 4th Gen nuclear can.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Seeing as this is a flood thread,and JM thinks GW intensified weather extremes justifies spuiking the nuke industries false claims of reducing GHG emissions, I think it appropriate to point out reactor location is restricted by access to water, so are positioned near the sea or large rivers.

Here is a French reactor site ...


Here is a British reactor site ....

[Outlaw Yogi]

Solar thermal at Sandia National Laboratories,

Two words- test. facility

If they were viable, they would be operating. They aren't so they are not

But they are, and the military is using it.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Also, we may work out how to use fusion (rather than fission) to generate power which would be ideal and may be scaleable enough to drive your car: a litre of distilled water may be the only fuel you will need over 10 years of use.

Fusion has been achieved, but the only way to contain it is within a mega powerful magnetic field.
Sustaining the magnetic field consumed more energy than that generated by the fusion reaction.

[IQS.RLOW]

Solar thermal at Sandia National Laboratories,

Two words- test. facility

If they were viable, they would be operating. They aren't so they are not

But they are, and the military is using it.

Let me know when a viable and reliable commercial plant comes on line. Until then, it is just a pie in the sky.

Real estate and climate are just two limiting factors.
Solar thermal is ancillary at best