Radical right-wing extremist conservatives falsely assert that solar is exotic,when in fact it’s the oldest,most conventional energy source (ignorance by Ronald Reagan not withstanding).Centuries before the birth of Christ,the anchient Greeks were already touting passive solar as the most efficient way to heat a house.You can find plenty of solar hot water collectors for sale in an old Farmer’s Almanac catalog from way back in the 1900′s.There’s nothing new under the sun.Opposition to solar is purely political……not a technology problem.

Conversely,opposition to nuclear power by ignorant radical left-wing extremists of the Jane Fonda and Greenpeace type is purely political as well.They are making a big rant about a non-existent nuclear waste problem that never really existed in the first place……a self-fullfilling problem and prophecy of their own making.They already knew how to immobilize nuclear waste in borosilicate glass decades ago.Ignorant obstructionists like themselves are the only problem……move out of the way and let more knowledgeable,sensible and rational people take care of it……just that plain and simple.

Claims that we can’t use more hydrogen and biomass is also too unduly closed-minded and pessimistic.Way back during the 1980′s,an inventor had already discovered a breakthrough for more efficient electrolysis of water molecules,but his idea has been largely forgotten.More biomass can be efficiently produced if it is hydrogenated with more hydrogen added to it.Nuclear power can assist in making biofuel production more economic.Nobody wants a fully electric car due to limited driving range.The answer to this problem is to have hybrid cars……electricity from nuclear,solar,and etc. for short local trips……nuclear-assisted production of biofuels for longer trips.Nuclear power and renewable fuels do not necessarily have to be at odds with each other.To the contrary,nuclear power can assist in making biofuels.

Sorry, as a nuclear engineer with over 30 years experience in design and operation of nuclear power plants, I will not and can not make the claim that modern plants are “sabotage proof.”

It is difficult, yes, but not impossible.

#44

Check this for the critical mass of AM-242:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium-242

After checking, you are correct that smoke detectors contain AM-241, not AM-242 as I noted.

First, I’m not a big believer in AGW. So far, it seems that they couldn’t reliably predict the sun rising in the east.

That said, if we were all serious about becoming both energy independent and carbon neutral, I don’t see this as being all that difficult with nukes. This is 90% engineering and investment and 10% science.

(1) slowly convert domestic transportation fleet to use nat gas, while continuing to use liquid petrol fuels, too.
(2) continue extracting fossil nat gas
(3) expand nat gas infrastructure
(4) expand domestic electric production via (primarily) nuclear plants (but wind turbines, solar, geo / moholes – all are welcome)
(5) begin synthesizing nat gas from C02 and H20 feed stocks
(6) begin incentives to wean off liquid petrol

…and some day, replace the internal combustion fleet with fuel cell vehicles running off of nat gas or methanol (possibly H2).

With the exception of urban mass transportation (i.e. light rail, etc.) using the electric grid for transportation seems like a bad idea.
(Vehicle power plants (internal combustion or fuel cell) that can use free oxygen will likely have a significant savings in mass over energy storage means like batteries, etc.)

31. Funny thing about Plutonium- it’s fissile, let’s burn it! Tossing out plutonium makes as much sense as tossing out gasoline as a byproduct of making kerosene.

39. True, U-233 can make a nuclear bomb, any long lived isotope that can go fast supercritical (that’s all fissile isotopes, plus Np-237) can. However, U-233 is too hot to handle compared to natural Uranium ore once it’s been down blended with U-238. It would be safer and easier to build a bomb from fresh uranium ore than to enrich down blended U-233 to weapons grade.

41. Great idea, but wholly unnecessary. Reprocessed waste could simply be placed into concrete casks and buried in a special landfill. Later, once the radioactivity is down to safe levels, these landfills can be mined for the various stable daughters of fission products, which include some rare elements with industrial uses. We could even chemically separate stable isotopes from the waste before burying it, as a biproduct of the reprocessing. As an example, we could extract roughly an ounce of silver from every ton of spent fuel. It’s not much, but it’s a biproduct worth obtaining (the real goal is to recover transuranics to make new fuel from, but extracting precious metals makes a good side business).