True. But it does give us decades until we have to have come up with the answer.

This does not mean we shouldn't be seeking that answer in the meantime.

But you never know when we'll finally get fusion going, or figure out a decent way to generate antimater and use it to kickstart a fision reaction.

Or, in the meantime, we could have nuclear power whilst building renewable energy sources like solar and wind whilst researching fusion technology (of course, that one requires a gravity well).

__________________

Hey you know what else we are getting great at? Not spilling oil!

In Popular Science last month they talked about a bacteria they are using to chew up the spent bi-products of nuclear plants. How about those beans?

__________________
If I had the option of voting 2000 and 2004 over again, I would still vote Bush.

Actually with some of the nanotech coming down the pipe I think we're on the verge of a solar revolution.

But the problem with things like solar and wind is their unreliable and non constant production. Unless we can really efficiantly store power they aren't a complete answer either.

Well unless we have collecters on Mercury shipping back antimatter or something.

I think the obvious compromises on nuclear power are:

1. Regulation. A new nuclear plant proposal must include the best ways to get rid of nuclear waste available. Nothing less.

2. Yes, in your backyard. The disposal/containment of nuclear waste must take place in the region affected by the nuclear power plant... not be placed upon people who do not benefit from the power.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Actually what we should do, and I think increasingly are doing, is store the stuff so we can reuse it later. Right now it's cheaper to just get some new fuel as opposed to reprocessing the old stuff, but that isn't going to be true forever. I think it's going to start changing pretty soon actually.

Too bad Carter decided to go with Coal instead. Funny, I don't see the French glowing in the dark, in fact they rank 12 in cancer rates per capita behind a lot of non nuclear power countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...th-from-cancer

Too bad there is a bill in the House Energy committee just sitting there since Jan 2007 that would establish nationwide standards and access to "on grid" solar for home and businesses. What large retail outlet wouldn't jump at the chance to make $.8 a kWh while the sun was shining, IF it was cost effective and home owners too. Schools, government buildings all adding power to the grid during the day along with wind, then transitioning to the idling nuclear plants at night. The money spent on CO2 research would be far better spent on the ideas I specified above, the drop in CO2 would just follow naturally. The beard scratching eggheads have more of a vested interest in saying they don't know for sure because should the day come where they come up with definitive answers, no more funding. A total waste after 10 years. If you took all the billions of research dollars spent, backed up 10 years and spent it on solar, wind and nuclear, we'd be close to energy independence with a low CO2 output too..

__________________

Would you rather have a walk on part in the war or a lead role in a cage?

Ding ding!

Give that man a prize!

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

...and a cigar for this man too!

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

One word...

RECYCLE

The only reason we have a nuclear waste build-up is because some lame politicians decided we shouldn't recycle the nuclear fuel. That was a stupid idea then and it is a stupid idea now.

__________________
Soldiers swear to protect and defend the Constitution with their lives.

Politicians swear to protect and defend the Constitution with someone else's life.