Solar and wind power are not real solutions to our power and climate problems

I was reading other threads where solar and wind are touted as real solutions for large scale power generation. These technologies are great for small scale application but are not viable long term.

Nuclear power is a real solution, but it's taboo because people associate all things nuclear with either bombs or disasters. This is holding the technology back.

http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/

This is the new Nuclear reactors, they can't melt down, they produce a fraction of the nuclear waste, and the waste produced is safe to be around in 1/3 the amount of time.

Clean safe carbon free energy, in massive quantities.

isn't this a better solution?

NO. And u r a stupid pawn.

NO. And u r a stupid pawn.

This.

[/endthread]

This.

[/endthread]

and that

[/endthread] x2

and that

[/endthread] x2

YOU CANT TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP! YOUCANTTRIPLESTAMPADOUBLESTAMP!

I barely know what a nuclear panner plant is so I'll stay on the "stupid irrelevant comment" side of things.

I was reading other threads where solar and wind are touted as real solutions for large scale power generation. These technologies are great for small scale application but are not viable long term.

Ya, sure. Wind and solar are TOTALLY not viable in a term application nor are they 'a real solution'.

*German Renewable energy production.

To help you understand the REAL problem here I'll use a comparison;

You're first sentence is implying one single giant farm producing all the world's food is best and that millions of small scale gardens everywhere are not viable long term… think about that for a second under the context of, say, most of human history.

What's neat is that both are stupid ideas on the extremes and the right answer is a mix of based on +7 billion ppls' circumstance and need. In this, your very first sentence stopped a discussion on something that is totally cool before it could start.

I attended some of the renewable cities sessions that were hosted by SFU earlier this summer, I believe that some of the materials are publicly available (Google sfu renewable cities), some very encouraging stuff. One of the things that really left it's mark on me is personal vs industrial energy use. Until there is a significant and sustained switch by industry (chemical, manufacturing, mining, recycling etc.) to renewable (or at least away from coal) , we are still going to have an emissions problem. Also, there is a lot more oil in the world than we thought just 10 years ago.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

Nuclear energy production remains a political problem, not a scientific or engineering problem. If I could have a reactor on my property, I would.

I would agree that more sustainable nuclear like the link you posted can and should be a part of the solution.
We can do so much with solar, but we can't meet all needs everywhere.

Who knows though, maybe the boys at General Fusion in Burnaby (or some others in this field) can make a huge breakthrough and change everything. :)

Renewable energy has the power to change the way we consume.

Nuclear energy production remains a political problem, not a scientific or engineering problem. If I could have a reactor on my property, I would.

I'm with you on this.
I wish people could see through the fear mongering, it can be done safely.

Nuclear energy production remains a political problem, not a scientific or engineering problem. If I could have a reactor on my property, I would.

yep

Those thorium reactors look awesome.

I'm all for the right kind of nuclear reactor.