If he’s into nuclear power production, good for him. We don’t have to develop losing energy sources like wind, solar, and cold fusion. Nuclear is right there with no impact on CO2.
Take nuclear to the next level with thorium and distributed generation using safe and proven technology. Tell Jane Fonda and her damn chine syndrome pals to shove it.
Nuclear is great, but it might be wise to wait another decade before building more. The Gen 4 reactors will use much less fuel and produce much less waste and be orders of magnitudes safer.
And hopefully someday we’ll get to fusion. When I was a kid I’d hoped we’d have it by now, but it’s one tough cookie to crack. But there are plans to build some positive output fusion plants also in the next decade or so. For now the existing nuclear and gas seem to be a good mix, with some wind and solar.
“If he’s into nuclear power production, good for him. We don’t have to develop losing energy sources like wind, solar, and cold fusion. Nuclear is right there with no impact on CO2.”
Exactly! Here in California, being situated on the coast, we have easy means to build and maintain a bunch of nukes. We wouldn’t be in a drought if we had desal plants, but they take a lot of electricity which is also in short supply thanks to the drought. Also electric cars would also make more sense of you charged them with electricity made by a nuke instead of burning coal or natural gas. But the government has convinced us that nukes are a bomb in waiting, so we all suffer the consequences of that stupidity.
If you apply the typical life cycle costs to our current law decreed nuke plants, they are not a good investment. There is better tech out there, but we are not able to use them.
The biggest issue is what to do with the waste. Nuke plants make a huge amount of deadly waste that needs to be stored forever. That makes them a poor bet for most places.
Full discloser, I like nukes. The life cycle costs are just really, really, high.