re: #145 Fozzie Bear

I know, I know.

You must acknowledge that a “hot” planet in terms of radiation isn’t much better than a “hot” planet due to temperature. We have to be really careful.

I guess my objection to nuclear (which is, mind you, outweighed by my objections to fossil fuels) centers around humans not being even remotely responsible, on average, and the rather horrendous potential consequences of even a single mistake.

As I said, Nuclear is one of our better options from a practical perspective, but we still need to be agressively working on all angles. It isn’t a solution to the problem, imho, it’s replacing a problem with a lesser problem. Yes, that’s progress, but I cringe a little when I think about how it could go wrong.

That’s the world we live in. Bad choice, or worse choice?

I acknowledge that a 3rd or 4th gen reactor can be built in uch a way that it is physically impossible for it to break down. I acknowledge that if we are going to dismantle nuclear weapons, we can blend down their cores and make fuel pellets and start a partially renewable fuel cycle.

While I absolutely agree that nuclear reactors need to be treated with the greates respect, which is to say run on the Navy model and NOT the pure business model, it is possible to run them safely.

The second you start saying hot planet, I understand your concerns, but you are also coming from a place that is not overly familiar with present technology. It can be done correctly when not run by idiots. Most importantly, it can be vastly more idiot proofed today than it was in the 70’s