My plan doesn't call for reactors for the next 100 years, only reactors until we have developed a more viable source of energy.
I think that the general reality of economies, surely 100 years ago no one figured their would be nuclear reactors to begin with, in 100 years who to say what there will be, though Edison put his bets on solar someday becoming a energy source and being the predominant energy source eventually.
Epi, go away. We don't need you here, and you're about as scientifically minded as a carrot. Go to the pseudoscience forum where you belong, you voodoo love baby.
No. I think we should use clean energy, such as wind, water, and solar. That is the way to go. Did anyone else hear about that new "sidewalk" being developed that captures the energy of the people walking? Alone, it isn't much, but with alot of people it could really cut down demand and it is clean and renewable. Combine that with other clean, renewable lowrisk or no risk sources, and we can cut dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power
The problem with renewable is they are intermittent (except for hydroelectric and geothermal) they can only provide 20-30% of are energy needs before we need battery or grid-energy-storage systems. Generation 3+ and 4 reactors are very low risk safety wise and can provide base-load energy to the grid.
My grandpa (who used to be an engineer, and is also one of the smartest men I know, so that counts for credentials, I guess) told me that per square foot of facility area, Nuclear is about 10 (I'd have to do a bit of research to see exactly) times safer than Wind power. That is taking into consideration all the people falling off of the Wind turbines while trying to fix them, and an industrial wind turbine is this big: http://www.metaefficient.com/wp-content/uploads/ge1.5-wind-turbine.jpg and a nuclear power plant is, well, big.
