I doubt your claim, because executive orders by a US.president apply only to the US, while there is huge demand for power throughout the world, with a significant scientific and engineering push for viable commercial breeder reactors in a number of countries, including the US.
Our government isn't organizing energy in a way to collect a lot of taxes. Major energy companies are on the list of companies that pay NO taxes. The transfer costs for fossil fuel are low. We tax fuel less than any other first world country. Our government is more than ready to take on the cost of risk of fuel transportation, pollution, etc. So, your tax issue IS significant, but for the OPPOSITE reason you propose.
I don't believe we or ANY other country is even slightly stupid about this new form of nuclear energy. The bottom line is that the technology for a commercially viable plant is not there yet, even though it's getting the serious attention of many countries including our own.
Government does not want more Taxes? Sure fooled me. What I said, and apparently was misunderstood is Government collects millions upon millions of dollars from the energy producers. Produce your own electricity on your homes roof and poof, there go the taxes.
well what would you consider piling up nuclear waste that will be dangerous for 10,000 years? We would have to develop a breeder reactor we can't because our hands are tied by a moronic law. what are you talkin about yet it can never be until we remove the stupid law that says we can't develop it. you can't do anything with the nuclear waste by federal law. you say you don't believe this law restricts exactly what it restricts. I'm sorry it's going nowhere until the law is repealed you are forbidden from doing anything other than stuffing nuclear waste in a hole. if it's getting attention maybe people will understand that that's law does restrict this people like you, but until you acknowledge that it's going nowhere.
Current nuclear reactor technology is NOT slowing down progress toward commercially viable breeder reactor technology. ?? This "law" thing is abject BS. It's a US law and this is an international objective. And, any actual solution to existing nuclear waste would be CELEBRATED!!
I don't know why this isn't clear. no progress can be made at all because it is forbidden by law. Just because you're not aware of the law doesn't mean it's BS. I honestly just learned about it. Then I researched it. Don't be pigheaded. Don't deny something is BS just because you don't know about it. Sounds like all the reason in the world for you to do a little research are the laws regarding what you can do with nuclear waste. The only way we can ever get this law repealed progress can be made on lowering the dangers radioactive waste is knowledge. If you truly believe what you say here you would be all for removing the law. It's kind of like our discussion about solar energy. Everybody should support the development of new ways of producing energy. Maybe you have some political biases that Force you not to do any research don't be that person that's like a bible thumper.
Once again, the length of the cable is irrelevant to how warm (not even hot) any part of the cable gets. The power loss is per unit length - the heat does not "say to its self, I won't dissipate here, I'll wait until I've traveled miles and miles"
repeating incorrect things does not somehow make them correct. Yes the length of the conductor does it affect how much resistance it has therefore how much heat it produces. That's a fact you can't argue against, and maintain any credibility. This is kind of a moronic argument do something I never said. He doesn't property resistance length increases resistance. The only kind of conductor that you would have that wouldn't have resistance would be a superconductor and those only exist in Sub-Zero temperatures as of today.
This is nonsense. US law couldn't stop progress on breeder reactors even if the US wanted it wanted to - which we absolutely do not. We and many other countris are making progress on this technology, with pilot plants in existence today. Maybe you're confused about the reprocessing issue. The US and others are not interested in the PUREX reprocessing processing, as it separates plutonim in a form readily usable in nuclear weapons. But, that is only one of several processing technologies. You are REALLY struggling. How about reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
The total power loss across the whole cable length increases with increasing length! No one has said that there is no power loss! Do you actually know what power is when applied to electricity as you don't seem to know what power loss per unit length even means?
yeah that's what I've been telling you and you've been arguing against. power loss increases on a logarithmic scale based on the length. You keep telling me I don't understand what things are that strikes me as gaslighting and that doesn't work on me.
There is no single alternative energy solution today. If we're talking solar we're going to have some on rooftops and some in farms some in private hands and some in public hands and all of it won't be 100% of our energy needs. But setting goals to allow solar or other alternative energies to be 30% or 50% or 75% of our energy needs is absolutely significant. You should know that the major energy companies are investing heavily in alternative energy with the goal of remaining major power producers and distributors, and yes earning profits which translates to income taxes. Also, most rooftop solar systems can sell power back to the local power companies, at a wholesale price, which they in turn sell at full retail, which again means profits and income taxes...
