I would be fine with nuclear power if two problems were resolved. (Please note, disposing of waste is not in my view a technical problem, and is a solvable political problem).
The first problem is nuclear weapons. The fuel cycle needs to be re-jiggered so it's impossible or at least impractical to steal fuel or waste and make weapons.
The second problem is that current fuel cycles are limited by mineral supplies. If we switched to some sort of breeder cycle the whole thing would make sense, but any new fuel cycle would still have to avoid the weapon problem.
I completely agree that rational decision would be very useful in the public discourse about nuclear power. Nobody ever seems to worry about the killer smog in China or the deaths and shortened lives of coal miners.
By paying my taxes, I'm threatening to kill millions of children and other innocent persons if their government does something really bad. This is wrong on the face of it. I'm living with deterrence (mutual assured destruction) even though it clearly is wrong because to me right now it seems the least among evils. But we must minimize the threat. How many nuclear warheads does the United States need to deter any attacker? Probably a few hundred. Enough to kill any attacking leadership and neutralize their military. Beyond that is crazy.
Kudos to President Obama for staying on course with this, even though he's being too cautious at least he's moving.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be fine with nuclear power if two problems were resolved. (Please note, disposing of waste is not in my view a technical problem, and is a solvable political problem). The first problem is nuclear weapons. The fuel cycle needs to be re-jiggered so it's impossible or at least impractical to steal fuel or waste and make weapons. The second problem is that current fuel cycles are limited by mineral supplies. If we switched to some sort of breeder cycle the whole thing would make sense, but any new fuel cycle would still have to avoid the weapon problem. I completely agree that rational decision would be very useful in the public discourse about nuclear power. Nobody ever seems to worry about the killer smog in China or the deaths and shortened lives of coal miners.
By paying my taxes, I'm threatening to kill millions of children and other innocent persons if their government does something really bad. This is wrong on the face of it. I'm living with deterrence (mutual assured destruction) even though it clearly is wrong because to me right now it seems the least among evils. But we must minimize the threat. How many nuclear warheads does the United States need to deter any attacker? Probably a few hundred. Enough to kill any attacking leadership and neutralize their military. Beyond that is crazy. Kudos to President Obama for staying on course with this, even though he's being too cautious at least he's moving.