Reply #21: I don't feel flamed at all. On some level I understand your frustration.

[NNadir]

On the other hand, you seem to demand that I take seriously things the things you take seriously on the grounds that they sound good to you. I have investigated, understand, and have thought about a great many energy schemes on a fairly detailed level. My conclusions are that all forms of energy have limits and dangers, nuclear energy included, but given reality, we much choose wisely to give us the highest probability of succeeding.

The Changing World Technology involves heating carbon based compounds to high temperatures in water that is supercritical (a temperature so high that the water is neiter steam nor liquid, above 373C) in such a fashion that everything is changed into hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. These are then hydrogenated (using the hydrogen generated from water in the reaction.) Nazi Germany did exactly the same thing in the 1940's with coal, as did South Africa (and still does to a limited extent), also with coal, and Jimmy Carter proposed it here, also with coal. This is the basis of all "anything into oil" schemes. If you don't believe me, it's not my problem.

My "bias" towards nuclear energy involves decades of study of the subject. I'm sorry you don't like the answer I have come up with, but it is nonetheless my conclusion. I note that I started from the anti-nuclear position myself, but once I had developed the understanding of technical and scientific concepts that I now enjoy, I used this training to take a closer look. I changed my mind. I note that this procedure involved hard work on my part.

I note that I would be as happy as anyone if all the renewable business panned out. But looking at history, I am not optimistic that they, in fact, will do so.

Look, energy is a scientific concept, invented by scientists to understand the world. As such it involves math. That isn't my fault. It is good that citizens think about energy, and in that sense, I can see you have tried to educate yourself, and I have no animus towards your efforts. On the contrary I applaud them. However you are not in a position to judge what is "bias" and what is fact. When you say about me "you are so biased toward Nuclear energy it is hard for me to trust your opinions," you are telling me that you are angry because I am not telling you what you want to hear.

I'm sorry. I don't tell people what they want to hear. I tell the truth as I see it. I do this because I'm very concerned with my children's future. I cannot do less than that. As a member of the self-absorbed baby boom generation, I have guilt enough.