People are scared of nuclear meltdowns (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island)
Nuclear fuel is not renewable.
If we switch over to generating the bulk of our electricity from nuclear generators, then we have to figure out where to store all that waste. There's enough political wrangling over storing the nuclear waste generated in the US now, adding significantly more waste to the pile would just cause a shit storm.
I know; it's frustrating that people are so terrified of it, though. It is quite unjustified. The waste isn't a small problem, but it is significantly less troublesome than CO2 and the environmental problems associated with coal (and, to a lesser degree, natural gas) and petrol. It is true that nuclear is not renewable, but that's not different from fossil fuels, and nuclear is a major step forward from them.
So, yeah, I understand the political realities that make nuclear untenable. I just think they are dumb, and do not match the reality of the state of the technology.
How much of the cost of those panels was subsidized by you, me and every other taxpayer the government?
I think you may have those strikethroughs backwards.
It varies, but over the lifetime of the panels I am willing to believe the cost is justified by the reduction in pollution. I wonder if the equivalent carbon credits would pay for them. Part of my example was to show that the same people capable of making use of the technology are opposing it despite that the personal benefit is often right in front of them.
Besides, I don't oppose subsidies like subsidies are all evil. I think many (perhaps most) are actually good ideas. Then again, I'd also tax the people I'm talking about at a higher rate, too, so they'd be the ones paying for their own solar.
Hey, you can do whatever you like - be the change that you want to see in the world, as Gandhi would say. Just use your own resources to do it, rather than making every sucker taxpayer pay for it. Yes, that means not taking subsidies for it.
You're welcome to your libertarian frontier as soon as you can launch yourself to Mars, though I suspect it's already been claimed in the name of
Wait, it's not such a good deal, is it, when you can't socialize the costs? Funny thing, that.
Actually, even without the tax break or subsidy or whatnot, the people I know who went solar would have made bank either way, and I suspect the cost of their usual energy bills would make their entire neighborhood swapping to solar quite profitable. However, their HOA banned the panels on account of them not being "cosmetic", and the two houses that have it were grandfathered in for the period of time the current owners live there. As usual, it's politics, not economy or science, that gets in the way of these advances.
The general public is not aware of LFTR because it is still immature. As such, it is not going to influence their nuclear opinions.
And there are quite a few possible new nuclear technologies that have zero or almost zero research funding on account of the FUD. It's quite frustrating for a scientist. For nuclear physicists and engineers, I imagine it's about as frustrating as the nonsense over GE technology ("GMOs") is to biologists and agricultural scientists.
i believe the reason goven. we went uranium because you can make uranium into a bomb. you can't do that so easily with thorium.
From what little I know, this is true, but misleadingly so. Much of the nuclear research that went into developing nuclear weapons was easily translated to nuclear power. Since thorium was not a viable core material, nuclear power was based on uranium and plutonium instead.
My point is that spent fuel does not constitute the majority of nuclear waste. There are other byproducts which cannot be used to make anything more than a dirty bomb.
There are proposed molten salt reactors that can render some kinds of pre-existing waste radioinactive. I don't know how well they work or how much of existing waste falls into those types, but it seems like a silly thing not to put effort into on a larger scale.
Huh? Can you be specific?
The blog entry by Anthony Watts, who is well known as a climate crank, is wrong about what the paper it cites about oscillations actually says.
That's total bullshit of a TLDR. This is the first time you brought that up (maybe that's what you were thinking in the first paragraph, but there's no way this is a reasonable tldr for what you ultimately submitted).
It's a shorter sentence version of exactly the first thing I typed that you quoted, actually. I may have said more than this, but that does not mean that I didn't say it. You may have meant that I did not attempt to support it, which is true. I did not. I don't think cranks need to be specifically debunked in detail every time they are cited. No proof was given that climate models are problematic, so there's no need to bother proving that they aren't.
What do you think is the evidence that it's anthropomorphic? It's the models.
This is not true. We spit out mountains of CO2. CO2 traps heat. Earth heats up. This doesn't depend on the details of a specific model any more than you burning your hand on the oven depends on the details of the differential equations governing dispersion and diffusion being linear or nonlinear.
That's an Everest of bullshit, and if you think models that can't predict reality are good proof, then I don't know what I could possibly say to convince you, because your position is faith based and not rational.
What do you think about string theory?
Have they gotten to the point where they're a good deal without the extra tax breaks / subsidies yet?
Please see my answer to this same point above.
I can't speak to what your friends say and think, but my position is that if it isn't competitive then it isn't competitive and we need to keep working on it.
Except it is competitive and is getting better. However, even if it weren't competitive, as a solution to the fossil problem it would be good. We have similar bumps in consumer technology where costlier products with higher inefficiencies or modest gains are favored because they improve some other, non-market aspect of the technology. That non-market aspect isn't always sensible, as with Apple products, but it is important. In the case of energy, the non-market aspects are far more important than the market aspects. For instance, if fusion power cost us as much as coal used to and always did, it would still be worth the cost.
As I believe I made clear earlier, however, I do not regard solar as a panacea. It's just a step forward.