If you cannot understand that, then you cannot understand why transient power sources like solar, wind, and many other alternative energy sources cannot be the total solution.
Read my fucking lips! I do not like nuclear energy. With a degree in physics I know the issues involved. I especially know what radiation can do. I am not saying that nuclear energy must be necessary, but rather that I think that it might be a good idea to research these new nuclear power technologies with the goal to provide a carbon neutral source of power which we will need regardless of solar, wind, or other transient sources.
The only alternative to a new carbon neutral source is either dirty sources, like coal (oil, gas, etc.), or to be able to store the energy so that we have 24/7 coverage or so that it can be used asynchronously to when it was generated. It's a zero sum game. There are no alternatives, my friend.
So the only choices are, learn how to store it or generate it so it's always available.
We cannot yet store it and smart grid will never pass the Republican House. So, my friend, Whatta ya gonna do?
The only alternative if you care about global warming is to implement non-carbon sources. That is the only reason why I would ever recommend nuclear. Do you fucking understand me now?
I am sorry for being profane. But I feel like a stuck record here. My purpose in posting here was to shed some light on a particularly knotty technological topic. You as much as accused me of being a shill for the nuclear power industry, a blatant personal attack.
I find this colloquy to be going nowhere since you seem to see me as an opponent, which I am assuredly not. If you can't have a reasonable argument, than I have nothing more to say to you. I have made my position clear; it is the best I can do. If you do not agree and do not want to listen to reasoned argument; or do not want to hear anything contrary to your beliefs, than there's nothing more I can say here.
Go in peace, my friend.
= new reply since forum marked as read