the_bmac wrote:
Gogarty wrote:

Ain't gonna happen. Oil is too cheap and too convenient. Nothing but
nothing can replace it for the vast majority of energy needs for as
far into the future as you want to project. The only truly viable
competitor, and only for major power stations, is nuclear -- provided
the cost of safety can be reduced.

Reactor accidents have shown us how serious this issue is. Anyone in
North America who was alive when Chernobyl melted down has strontium and
cesium isotopes in their bone, teeth and thyroid tissues from that
accident. But even more problematic is the storage of so-called "spent"
fuel pellets. With half-lives in the hundred thousand year range, more
thought needs to be given to disposal methods. IT may be that there is
no viable way to deal with reactor waste. Then there is the issue of
cost. Reactors have short life spans. What to do with a reactor core
that is no longer viable after years of being bombarded by radiation?
Big $$$$$$$ to replace. True, nuclear fuels produce obscene amounts of
energy relative to its mass, but...

Safety? I think every capitol ship in the US Navy is now nuclear.
Don't seem to be many of those going TU. And France among others have
bookoo reactors.
G