Not against nuclear power, just think it is rather inefficient and expensive.
We used to have a working nuclear reactor on campus (neutron breeder), the techs assured me that complying with the rules made virtually
everything multiplicatively more expensive than operating reactors on friggen submarines.
Also tend to think that the supporters tend to over state its benefits, just as its detractors tend to over state its advantages. Even the nations that use it extensively aren't exactly expanding its use. Is it economically viable?, in the US for example it is only even in the ball game because of massive subsidies from the government.
Ahem, BS. The French are actively increasing their nuclear usage; as are the Japanese. Of the major states, they are the heaviest nuclear users.
Is it economicly viable? According the OECD, the International Energy Agency, and EVERY life cycle assement I've ever read, nuclear power is cheaper per kWh than anything except coal (and if you include the health impacts of coal it is cheaper).
That or the interesting work being done with thorium and non uranium or plutonium derivatives in nuclear work.
Thorium is much more expensive currently. You'd have build lots of new infrastructure and you'd face starvation price cuts by the uranium cycle as it faces disruption. Eventually thorium might be more economical, but not right now.
SPS might be prohibitively expensive, but perhaps instead a series of relay satellites which would bring in power from economically advantageous areas say in hydropower rich areas, or geothermal, or tidal, or temperature differential. I mean there is enough fossil free energy sources, only problem is that you can't get the power elsewhere cheaply. Before anyone says it I am well aware of orbital launch costs, I am merely suggesting a cheaper alternative.
Don't make me laugh. Beaming power is far, far more inefficient than sending it down a conventional wire. Current doesn't scatter, EM radiation in atmosphere does.
The main problems with these energy sources are:
1. They are expensive. Tidal sucks ass, OTEC is worse.
2. There aren't enough hot spots to meet demand. Hydro- exactly which rivers aren't being tapped in the CONUS again? OTEC? How may places really have that large of temperature differentials in relatively shallow water? Tidal? Sorry but we don't all have copious high volume fjords that create large amounts of head. Geothermal? Sorry but again don't have all that many sites where you can set up shop.
There are more problems (such as seasonal variation in OTEC, monthly variations in tidal, greenhouse gas emission for hydro, etc.) but those are the big ones. What cheap generating potential exists, is already tapped or can't be tapped for various reasons (i.e. damming Niagra Falls is not politically possible).
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
"
