Reply to post:

Doomsday Clock moves to 150 seconds before midnight. Thanks, Trump

LionelB

I agree that we ought to be researching better alternatives to fossil fuels. The key word in that sentence is 'better'.

If you mean "better than existing non-fossil fuel alternative technologies", I agree. That may mean refining/building on existing technologies, or finding truly radical alternatives - although we can't afford to sit around waiting for the latter to fall into our laps - major technological innovations are rare (science tends to proceed incrementally).

I'm not convinced the 'alternatives' we are forced to subsidise now are the answer. If all the money thrown away on subsidy/wind farms were directed at sensible research on, say, stable fusion reactors, we might be getting somewhere.

The jury may be out on the long-term viability of wind/tidal/solar energy technologies. But we don't have the luxury of waiting around for the long term. Personally, I am not anti-nuclear energy - although the problems (especially long-term ones!) associated with current nuclear technologies are clear. Nor is nuclear "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination, particularly taking into account decommissioning and amortised costs of safe, non-polluting waste disposal. A viable stable fusion technology would be lovely - but after many decades of intense research and huge amounts of funding (subsidised by... the taxpayer) we seem to have little to show for it. It's a hard problem and we cannot rely on it being cracked in the short-to-medium term.

But the green scream queens won't wear that kind of research because, horror of horrors, it's a nuclear technology.

Wouldn't worry too much about that, they have zero traction now that the agenda is dominated by alt-right, alternative-truther, conspiracy theory howling nutters (personally, I'll take the scream queens any day).

We desperately need a step change for cheap energy and the productivity leading to wealth generation that creates, but the current (expensive) 'renewables' are a step backwards.

I disagree that they are a step backwards. They may be just a small step forward (or sideways), but the alternatives are just not there (except for nuclear - fission - with its concomitant problems).

Also, when it comes to the environment, have you seen how destructive neodymium is to extract? ...

Like coal/oil/gas/fissionable materials - extracted on vast scales - are not?!?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019