Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Based of earlier discussions on this site regarding fuel cycles and reactor designs, I am going to claim that current technology is the result of the "need" for "dual-use" facilities.

Why don't you provide a list of countries with nuclear reactors that are not believed to be able to produce nuclear weapons shortly if they decide to do so? For instance, it is generally agreed that Japan could get a nuke in a year if it wanted to.

Now, you asked the question of why the renewable industry is "so small". Let me make my point more clearly, since you managed to misunderstand it.

The nuclear industry got a head start from military applications around WWII. That is a huge government subsidy. In the 1940's and 50's power production was pretty much a side effect of the fuel cycle. I made no claims about current uranium demand, that has little to do with the size and maturity of the nuclear industry.

And I did say that a lot of our technology is fuel-based because fuels provide mobility, autonomy and escalability almost on demand.

Does that explain why renewables are smaller than they might otherwise be?

So, whether or not you think fossil fuels are unacceptably dangerous, the military is going to continue to use fuels. And if they cannot be fossil they will be synthetic (from nuclear or renewable electricity).

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 25th, 2007 at 06:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series