Randy Yates wrote:
> brent <bulegoge@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>
>> On Nov 20, 9:35 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>> have backfired.
>> I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
>> believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
>> screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. It is the
>> only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
>> And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
>> convert to nuclear - NOW.
>>
>> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
>> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
>> warming thing is a fraud.
>
> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>

It is a matter of 1) symbolism 2) supplier "diversity" and
3) bootstrapping - once we have more nuclear waste to deal with,
we'll get better at it.

I think what brent is saying is more in line with "we
may well have a problem technology. Let's find a tech solution
to it rather than build "awareness" and turning the whole
thing into a Kum-Bay_Yah fest." which is highly unlikely
to actually *solve the problem*.

We trade fossil fuels for the privilege of there being so many of
us. I kinda like us. I am a species-ist.

> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
> worry about energy again.

So we are to replace a technology which creates uncomfortably high
energy densities with a technology with orders of magnitude
more energy density? Even if we could do it?

--
Les Cargill