"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

snip
These are probably totally impractical but the point is that throwing
money at one way of doing it hasn't worked: we need tp literally dream up
another, and a bloke in a garden sipping a cup of tea is as likely to do
that as 1000 scientists and engineers in a research lab.

You mean di-lithium crystals are not just around the corner?

Once you HAVE a viable methodology, well then yes, DEVELOPING it is worth
spending billions on

And THAT technology is nuclear fission: we know HOW to build reactors
that work. WE want better safer cheaper and cleaner reactors.

OK. I thought we had spent all we needed there. The problem seemed to be
in persuading commercial generators to invest their shareholders money.
Maybe we should build our own and undercut coal and gas?

So I say spend millions on a few scientist to dream up a way to make
fusion work, but spend the billions on new fission reactor design and big
engineering teams to handle it, because that WILL produce results.

Is there a better way of doing it? I note your comments about excessive
safety regulation but what could realistically be changed to save
significant sums without Joe public running for the horizon?

Absolute drivel.
Nuclear power always was and always will be expensive.
The nuclear indusry has always hidden the true costs.
Right from day one when electricity was going to be too cheap to be worth
metering.
Even now they can't build a commercial reactor, it need vast taxpayer
subsidy.
We still have to pay out for decommissioning and waste disposal for all the
**** they generated in the past.
With no guarantee it will work.

It was all about lies and nuclear weapons in the past.
Now it's just lies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sidy-deal.html

And BTW, "Joe Public" has usually been right in the past.