There you go with the colorful adjectives again. Nuclear power is alread incredible efficient, meaning that it has little room to get more efficient. While Solar has room to grow and grow and grow and at the rate that it is, the nuclear lobby has to start pushing nuclear now, while it can still hold its ground.

Actually solar performs each and every day. It still delivers power on cloudy, even pouring cats and dogs rain. Nuclear power planets can go, at most 24 months before having to be shut down for maitainence, checks, and repairs (typically they do it every 18 months). Solar is so simplistic, that a simple computer program can moniter the status of each panel, and if one gets damaged, that one can be replaced without having to shut down the entire plant.

It's actually not magic, it's science. If you can't take science seriously than, oh well.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I never said it was based on the name, that is a faulty conclusion that you drew. I blow off the NEI because I blow off any one who supports cold fusion and claims to be scientific.

Nuclear can not meat our energy needs without relying on fuel from foriegn nations, meaning that it can't be our primary power source. We should have no more power from any paticular power source than we can provide ourselves, solar is the only one that can do that by it self. Not saying that it should, but it can, it has more power than nuclear.

So nulcear can be a secondary, it can be a base, but it can't do it by itself, it can't do most of it by itself. We are going to have to rely on something else to cover the rest of our needs. And seeing the potential in solar and the vast abundence of it, there is no reason not to.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Nuclear is efficient, and there are designs in progress that are already improving what exists now. I think you meant minimal potential in another way, as in totality. Okay.

However, even if it were less efficient than solar, it would still be a better bargain. As you said, efficient doesn't mean it provides abundance. We have proven technology. You have speculations that assume endless progress because of nano magictech.


I think we are missing what each other is saying. I am not saying nuclear will make us perfectly independent, nor am I saying we should only try to rely on it. I don't think nuclear will replace all other energy sources. I actually said I think it will and should vastly increase and supply more of our energy needs, given it's efficient, relatively cheap once set up, and provides abundant energy that's reliable.

Full independence is a silly idea and not realistic, and we will never rely heavily on solar. I don't see that happening any time soon. Nuclear fuel is abundant, and ironically, very clean to use. Solar isn't as clean as proponents like to propagandize.

Actaully, tens or thousands of power independent homes across the midwest show that it is not speculation, solar is providing total power independence for many.

Of course it won't make us energy independent, which is what we should be going for. It can't even come close, which is why it should and will remain as a secondary power source. Even if the Nuclear lobbyists were to get it to be the main power source, it would still be passed up later by solar as our power needs continue to grow and Nuclear reaches it's national maximum (that is the maximum that we can provide without having to rely on fuel from foriegn nations).

Solar is 100% clean to use and has no byproducts of any kind. Nuclear can't match that.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Solar energy IS growing. It may be convenient to go back a few years with the old silicone based technology for a stereotype that will help you write off solar energy. However, they are using fresnel lenses to focus more of the sunlight onto panel surfaces, have panels and arrays of panels that rotate with the sun, and the non silicone based nanotech film has been developed that utilizes the full spectrum of light, is cheaper and may end up being a paint on solar sensitive proposition in the future.

Let's see, I mention Yucca Mountain waste disposal being tied up in court and evidence of an earthquake fault in the area, and ..... there is no response. And the alternative is wastes stored all over America at nuclear plants and other locations, which presents a security issue. Or we have the Hanford site with an absolutely horrific track record for environmental protection. Nuclear wastes have leaded into the ground water. So once again there is the argument to ignore the waste issue when it has NOT been resolved. So it is the ol' slam dunk approach and once again citizens are going to have to not let the nuclear power energy corporations off the hook on this issue.

Earthquake faults are also an issue and this has not been resolved with Yucca Mountain. The Japanese are among the top nuke energy consumers in the world, and as advanced as they are in their tech, they built a nuclear power plant on an earthquake fault, and it has indeed had leakage into the environment after an earthquake.

Gee whiz, the last time I had this type of debate I found out that the pro nuke industry guy was employed by the nuke industry.

__________________
National Debt =

Except energy independence isn't going to happen in the first place. It's unrealistic. We need the abundant energy nuclear can supply to the infrastructure. The sources of uranium, again, are abundant. It's not a problem trading for it.


Tens of thousands of homes using solar panels isn't evidence it's viable as a national infrastructure energy system. It's pure speculation to assume it will become some vast, efficient supplier of energy to the economy. You just assume endless increases and rely on "nano tech." You have no actual way of substantiating your claim we will be using it as the primary source. You just assert it and then point to a few homes. Hell, for many, it's not even economically feasible.

Moreover, I mentioned again, Nuclear power is more reliable than solar. This is a fact. It runs long-term and provides steady power. Solar doesn't.

The Nuclear waste is hardly much of an issue as most people make it out to be, and solar panels are notoriously polluting to make and trash.

It was addressed. You myopically focus on one thing as if that's devastating. Environuts always tie nuclear up. That's their little shtick. They're morons.

They are one reason why everything is so expensive and takes so long with nuclear power and storage. They are unreasonable. Even if you can't use Yucca, and many believe it's safe enough, the storage containers are nigh impregnable, it has an excellent storage and transportation record, and the waste can be made minimal with spent fuel reprocessing, as I already mentioned.

Moreover, you can store the waste on-sight under the facilities.

Nuclear power has one of the best safety records in the energy industry. Problems are minimal, even in Japan. The last time there was an earthquake, there was minimal damage and the safety mechanisms worked as intended. I posted that here.

"The Nuclear waste is hardly much of an issue as most people make it out to be, and solar panels are notoriously polluting to make and trash."

So we should believe this because ......... (drum roll) ............ you said it? Got links and sources? Waste isn't an issue for nuke enthusiasts because they are actively ignoring it. It is still the 500 lb gorrilla in the room you don't want to talk about.

"Environuts always tie nuclear up. That's their little shtick. They're morons."

So are you going to go the low road route and use putdowns?

That usually means someone is scraping bottom of the barrel for rationale that nuclear energy is good. It still does not directly address the issues that are pending in court or the earthquake fault issue.

__________________
National Debt =

You should believe it because I cited it several times, proving it.


Do you comprehend what spent fuel reprocessing is, or do I need to explain it to you?
Do I need to explain (again), the perfect transportation record?
Do I need to explain (again) the durability of storage containers? They are rated against:

1. Immolation
2. High impact
3. Submersion
4. Piercing.

Spent fuel reprocessing makes nuclear waste minimal. It reduces 99% of the problem.
Storage can be on-sight, and Yucca mountain isn't actually as dangerous as they are saying it is.

Of course, any citation made is automatically dismissed as "propaganda" by the industry, so you have made it impossible to prove anything.

I can just as well say your sources are environmental nutbars. Which many of them probably are.

"You should believe it because I cited it several times, proving it."

And would you believe me just by citing something several times, proving it. I don't think so. It works both ways.

"Of course, any citation made is automatically dismissed as "propaganda" by the industry, so you have made it impossible to prove anything."

I know scientific third party information when I see it. I know industry sources when I see them. Besides, you have provided nothing here. So all of this is your guess instead of me actually making anything impossible to prove here.

"I can just as well say your sources are environmental nutbars. Which many of them probably are."

Actually the source I use most in posting here is Technology Review, which is an e-magazine put out by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). If you want to call them "environmental nutbars" I seriously doubt you would recognize a source with credibility.

We are going over the same points here and it is getting tedious. I'm outta here. Have a nice day.

__________________
National Debt =