Like I said, overuse of oil is bad, regardless of whether global warming is a myth or not. If you're a farmer or a rancher, it's not *bad* if you own an F-250. But if you live in the 'burbs, contrary to the name, owning a Suburban is just plain wasteful. We need to conserve our oil for transportation systems that will require oil for the forseeable future, like airplanes, ships, and freight trains. The truth is, we're not going to be seeing any zero-emission airplanes anytime soon. They just figured out how to get a solar-powered UAV flying through the night, and Boeing is still figuring out how to make a single-seater hydrogen bird. In other words, airplanes, ships, and freight trains still need the power only an internal-combustion engine can provide. So we should conserve our oil in other ways, like switching to electric cars. The problem with electric cars is that most US power plants are still powered by fossil fuels, so we're moving the waste from the exhaust pipe to the smokestack. We need, in my opinion, plug-in electric cars powered by nuclear power. The truth is, wind, solar, and geothermal power will not meet our juice demands any time soon. Nuclear power is safe and does not pollute the air. Like Ronald Reagan said, the waste from a nuclear power plant from an entire year of operation can be fit under a desk.

Nuclear power being woefully economically inefficient, and the widespread use of it would cause a not inconsiderable dent to the economy, which would actually dent our ability to adapt to a future without fossil fuels.

Solar and wind are cheaper, but you'd need a lot of windmills and giant mirrors. Even a small nuclear plant puts out a lot of juice.

You need to research some of the wind farms in the midwest. There is one, Fowler Ridge about halfway between Indy and Chicago, which currently provides 600 MW and can serve 150,000+ homes.

I never claimed to be an expert. I just think that between coal and nuclear, I would rather have nuclear. Sorry for making uneducated assumptions.

"Nuclear power being woefully economically inefficient, and the widespread use of it would cause a not inconsiderable dent to the economy, which would actually dent our ability to adapt to a future without fossil fuels."

Can you please elaborate on this. I've never heard such a thing.

Nuclear Power is not "woefully economically inefficient". It's more complex than that.

The cost of building a new nuclear plant is MUCH higher than building a coal or gas-fired plant. However the fuel costs are much, much lower over the lifetime of the plant. Generally speaking, also taking into account the expensive end-of-life decommissioning, a nuclear plant needs to be in service for something like 30+ years before it becomes more cost-effective than a coal or gas plant.

A study commissioned by Massechusets Institute of Technology in 2003 concluded that:

"In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas. However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage."

I'm fascinated by the potential of this sort of generation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

@Jamiet, I am willing to stand corrected on that, but no Nuclear plant had been build without subsidy the last time I checked. The only real way to work out the most economical way forward is by allowing market forces to operate on the electricity markets, but I don't see that happening.

"Massechusets"

Sorry, Jamiet, but I just have to point out that that's a spelling fail.

Also, what was the problem with "MIT"?

Tell France nuclear power sucks

France is still at the "Ooo! Shiny!" stage of nuclear power maturity. They think it's the greatest thing since Reagan and see no negative consequences.

False you don't know what your talking about

@cent - It's The_MasterDiplofool. You should know better than to expect him to actually have a clue.

It annoys me

When you say fossil are more cost effecive do you take into account CO2 output cost, and with coal the land reclamation cost.

Not to mention the relative scarcity of said fuels so dependent on rich sheiks opec and public opinion

@ centurion1 -- Then why do they have so many nuclear plants?

Also, you're right about one thing. Fossil fuels are definately more expensive in the long run.

Oh. I forgot to mention that my dream garage would have an old, classy car with a big-assed engine like an Olds 442 or Ford Gran Torino, and a brand-new Ford GT next to it.

No Road Runner?

Dr. Warrior

Who France? You idiot I just told you they had the most extensive program in the world and love nuclear power.

And centurion gets the award for the worst lack of punctuation that I've ever seen.

Ad Hominem or Digression? Which was that TMDiplofool? Are you attacking centurion's character because of his spelling rather than answering his question? Or are you just trying to change the subject so you don't have to answer it?

I think that was a retreat in disorder.

He is an imbecile. If he knew anything and watched his mouth he would realize I do most of my webdip posting and playing from my phone.

And Dr. TMW Jackass wins the pride for most pathetic evasion of a discussion i have ever seen.

@ centurion

What question? I'm not going to answer a nonexistent question.

What question?! Fucking priceless! Read the post, you fucking moron!

ahem thank you dragunar.

yes what he said