cj,
Only if we go to breeders. Otherwise, we run out of exploitable uranium.
True, but it is not an either / or. It is a transition. Newer reactors have higher breeding ratios. So as time goes by, and ratios improve, the amount of available fuel goes up
Again, it isn't the best solution from a technical point of view. But I see how it can become a Cause. If all it does is get everyone, well most people, pulling in the same direction, then the technology can be sorted out. At the moment, most people feel pretty helpless while the rest are denying it is a problem.
Leave it up to the politicians, and they will pick as their Cause something that will flop.
I don't mind all the different technologies duking it out. We have advances in photovoltaic solar, solar thermal, wind, nuclear, bio-fuels.
The winner should be not what some politician cooks up, but the technology that delivers electric power at the cheapest price per Watt / hour and is not a fossil fuel. This is what will cure all ills, because the technology that delivers on cheapness front will not need government subsidies to get to the point of meeting majority of power needs and also will result in electricity successfully competing in other energy markets - home heating and transportation.
Leave it up to the politicians, and I can almost guarantee that they will "pick the winner", and the winner will not be based on objective measure of price per Watt, but some subjective measure.
The grid parity is an interesting measure, but achieving grid parity means there is no gain (yet). It just means we have found something that will stop things from getting worse. The real target should really be something like 1/2 or 1/3 of the current grid price. Because only then you know you have a winner.
Joe |
