flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Alright, well first of all i think you both are right to some degree. If i can understand you all is that Nuclear power is probably not the best option, but where we are getting stuck is how do you replace the gap in or energy consumption? I feel that it's everything, now let me explain. first i think the main deal is, we need to stop using so much, as a country and as a planet. And obviously when i mean we as a planet, i mean people in developed countries.
what do i mean by this? well it is said that nuclear is about 25% of our power (which to tell you the truth could be inflated) but lets just go with it. if we alone did not have huge houses, huge TVs ( i mean you would be amazed how much energy it is to heat one of those huge houses). To be honest, the list goes on... So what i'm talking about, is conservation. and if there is any extra energy we need to take care of, then you turn tooooo natural energy..
solar panels on every stinkin house in the country; every building ect. also though ,solar farms in teh southern deserts, wind farms near the coasts and idaho (boy is that place windy) and geo thermal in places (probably in the west coast.
I'm a HUGE proponent of nuclear. But I'm never proposing we shove it down the market's and the people's throats. Build out the NEW designs in remote locations and ATTEMPT to test them to destruction -- if that's what it takes to understand the safety implications. Then once tested -- Cut the heck of out of the approval process.
Solar in the desert would still require an 80% of peak generator (some other type) to get you though the nighttime. And geothermal is a dirty mining operation that shouldn't be on the list of clean, green alternatives.