dwightlooi

I said EXACTLY... then went on to implicate and berate a hero of the left from over 75 years ago without without actually naming him, his position or his political affiliation. But I guess it still hurts the moderator's leftist sensibilities.

It is not a conspiracy that people -- including people wearing white coats -- jump on a bandwagon for expediency of repute, monetary or career gains. It is also not a conspiracy that practically ALL the repute, money and career opportunity for a "scientist" lies with supporting not contravening the Global Warming hypothesis and the massive political and social momentum it carries. As I have said, it is not very different from Wise Men supporting nonsense like the Earth Centric universe -- even Galileo (prudently) recanted his articulations to the contrary so he doesn't have to die or spend the rest of his life in a tower somewhere. No tin foil hat needed to recognize the very simple fact that ALL the nuclear wastes mankind have made or will ever make can be put in a very small area that even if heavily polluted is not a problem for 99.9999% of the surface of the planet. That is good enough for me and for anyone with some common sense.

That's not exactly a bad thing. There is not much additional efficiency to be squeezed out of the ICE. The last thing we need is any more annoying, unreliable, unrefined and expensive "improvements" to get another 0.5 mpg. Anyone who had to put up with, or modify their cars to get rid of, Auto Start-Stop knows what I mean. Also, how has previously stellar Honda-Acura reliability been since they adopted those 1.5L turbo engines boosted to 21 psi in their Accord? I am sure their customers appreciate going from 5 stars to 3 stars...

.

Why not? When it is not a problem to begin with and doing otherwise is hugely expensive and of minimal benefit? It is in fact silly to choose a vastly more expensive solution to what is essentially a non-problem. Put another way, we can totally clean up nuclear test sites rather than simply make them off limits. But it is a so expensive in exchange for a remote and largely useless plot of land you simply just put up a few signs and call it a day. Not just us, the Russians, the Chinese and everyone else does that. I have no problems with it. I'll rather talk about lead contamination of drinking water or Oxides of Nitrogen in the air than worry about non-issues like nuclear waste or Carbon Emissions.

Two things... We spend billions on placating environmental idiots on a non-issue -- that's nothing new. You can spend millions on trying to accommodate a turtle who leaves in an area bisected by a pipeline; it's as big and as tiny of a problem as you want to make it. That fact is that we can simply take all the wastes, pile in in a the desert with a roof over it. The world wouldn't end and for 99.9999999% of the population it wouldn't be within 200 miles of anything they do. Maybe you can't live with that. I can.

Because when they don't say that or they lose their jobs, get ostracized and get no money for their labs? And, when they do they get tenure, get acclaimed and are showered with billions of research money? No, I am not high. Compared to other pollutants Nuclear Waste has never really been a problem even though environmental types like to make it the boogieman. Nuclear waste is COMPACT and SOLID. And, regardless of how toxic and/or radioactive they are, the Earth is a HUGE place and there is no shortage of arid and stable places where you can put them under shelter above the water table for centuries if need be. For context, ALL of the Nuclear waste generated in the USA since the Manhattan Project is about 80,000 tons whereas the Great Pyramid is about 5 million tons.

For the Government types it's an excuse to pass laws, make regulations and divert funds to get industries to come to them to beg for relief, favors or handouts, thereby empowering and enriching themselves and their buddies? For people in White Coats it's billions of dollars in funding, adoration and maybe a prize from Stockholm vs losing your tenure, being ostracized and having no money? For Celebrities, Media morons and Joe the Tree Hugger its a convenient avenue to feel good about themselves and have others feel good about them? It's like the Medieval Church really... the Kings are for power through the Divine Right of Kings supported by the Church. The Wise Men was for it for legitimacy, patronage and not being burned at the stake. The Low Born are for it because serfdom sucked and it was comforting to think that they are servants to God and the promise of eternity, rather than slaves to their lords and clergy!

Waste has never been really a problem, there are plenty of arid places to dump them so they won't ever get into the ground water. The reason people don't build breeder reactors any more is because they are a pain to start up, shut down and refuel. The whole thing must be filled with molten sodium, if the reaction stops the sodium solidifies and the reactor is literally "bricked". The the question becomes how to you remove the molten sodium coolant without overheating the fuel rods or how do you remove the fuel rods without solidifying the sodium? The way the Russians did it on the Alfa submarines was to refuel and actively operating reactor. Another way to to bring a megawatt class arc furnace alongside so you can keep the reactor on life support while you do it. Actually, we have NEVER successfully fused atomic Hydrogen in a reactor. Both magnetic confinement and laser inertial reactors use Tritium and Deuterium fuel. Also, a fundamental problem with fusion is how you capture the energy released. Let's say you have a chamber within which you get a fuel pellet hot enough and under enough pressure to fuse. You can MEASURE that rather easily, but capturing the energy to do anything is a different story. In a fission reactor you have a very hot core of solid matter and you simply run a coolant through it then use it drive a turbine either directly or on a secondary circuit. But with either a laser chamber or a Tokamak toroid, there is no way to run a coolant into the insides and outside is not exactly designed to conduct heat and run a turbine either. Think of it has running your car in your garage and trying to get energy from that engine indirectly from from outside your house. It's contorted at best and mostly futile by design.

(1) GOVERNMENT does not put it's own interest, that of its leaders and those of its minions over that of the people and their lives? Now, that's bona fide naïvety through and through. And, who reigns government in but us right wing, small government, capitalist pigs? Left wing Liberal types are all too willing to shower Government with more involvement, more power and more TRUST. (2) Again, the planet had been warmer than it is today and the world didn't end or become irreparable. As a matter of fact the last two times it was warmer, the Dark Ages ended and the Minoans thrived, respectively. That's the real inconvenient truth isn't it?

Good to hear that you are for the ONLY energy source to have the energy density and persistence to power a post oil & gas civilization. Whether or not we believe that there is ANY need to reduce carbon emissions, there will come a time when fossil will become more costly than their alternatives as easily accessible reserves are depleted. When that happens, securing access to Uranium reserves will be the center of geopolitics... it's better that we start now that later. BTW, breeder reactors CAN blow up and melt down albeit not as easily as boiling water reactors of the 60s. As a matter of fact, they are a huge pain in the ass to refuel or decommission because they are molten metal cooled reactors. Their primary advantage is that the create fissile products that are subsequently fissile material and are hence much more fuel efficient. Truly safe reactors are the helium cooled reactors driving gas turbines on the primary loop. Helium does not carry radioactivity worth a damn even if it escapes and the fuel matrix is self moderating such at an unmitigated failure shuts down the fissile reaction without intervention. Their downside of course is that they have much lower power density.

LOL... #1, #2 and #3 are very accurate appraisals only perhaps too concise and generalized for your liking. As to #4 I have already articulated why I do not believe the Global Warming hogwash many times, but here's the very concise version. (1) The Earth had been warmer with half the CO2 and much colder with 10x the CO2 in the air. (2) As a matter of fact, ice core samples have shown that temperatures did not track CO2 levels going back beyond when Dinosaurs walked the Earth. (3) Hence, it is bogus to conclude that today's climate is either exceptional or linked to CO2 in general (much less man made CO2).

He who makes rule gets to decide what it means? In this case, I suppose the absence of mention of any politician, political party, legislative agenda or election results makes it a philosophical discussion -- on green energy, transportation, climate change and healthcare -- rather than a political one?

@ Drew Dowdell To put it concisely... here's the difference between You and I. (1) You believe that greedy individuals and greedy companies are not doing you any favors, hence GOVERNMENT is often a better alternative. (2) I believe that GOVERNMENT is also greedy organization comprised of greedy bastards, hence it is practically always a worse alternative because it has the power to compel its will upon you through fines, imprisonment and executions. (3) In short, you trust the ruling authorities and their minions to fight for the welfare of the people, I trust the individual person to fight and win for himself. That is why you are a leftist and I am not. (4) That... and of course... you believe in that Climate Change is man made and highly abnormal; I believe that Climate Change is natural and the current changes are not exceptional.

Three things... (1) Government is not more likely to serve YOUR interest than private enterprise. Ultimately, both serve the interest of the leaders and minions of the organization first and everyone else second. (2) The difference between Government and Private enterprise is that the latter CANNOT COMPEL the consumption of, or payment for, their product or service on you. Government on the other hand CAN COMPEL you to pay for it through taxation. You do not have to use Microsoft windows or buy power from the private utility company however inconvenient that may be -- you can use Linux or you can get your own generator. If you don't pay your taxes they throw you in jail, seize your assets anyway and shoot you if you resist. Private companies -- even monopolies -- can't do that. (3) You may say that you can influence government policy with your vote. But there's so many problems with that argument. Firstly, with private companies you have an absolute segregation of choice. You can decide on buying or not buying Tesla's Solar Roof independently of eating at MacDonalds or getting an iPhone. With government you are forced to vote on a one size fits all package from two political parties that encompasses everything. You don't like the way this party's appointee runs the power grid, but you don't like the way the other runs abortion, guns control, healthcare, immigration, education or whatever else... So do you really have the freedom to decide on this specific issue? I don't think so. Secondly, with Private Enterprise your choice is exclusively yours. If you decide that you want to screw Texan power companies, you can get your own generator, solar panels and a Tesla Powerwall. You, and you alone, CAN decide to do that. If you decide that you want to vote against for the gay promising to reform your municipal utility, it is diluted by millions of other voters may not vote for the same guy. I believe that we should be largely an "on your own society" and government should be there to provide national defense, public safety, basic infrastructure and a legal frame work. Anytime something can plausibly be done by private or government entities it should be totally private -- and that includes energy, transportation, healthcare and education.