You seem resistant to considering the idea that while some of our Reactors, as recent as they are to HUMAN history, are today a couple generations old and facing 'Advanced Decrepitude'. They are now OLD sources in terms of the 2008 Energy Supply.

As a solution to our present energy situation, they are not at the head of the list (speaking of chronology, not priority) not the new kid in class, as ways have been developing to make other sources both increasingly economical, and less politically objectionable. In that conversation, Nuclear is not a NEW item on that agenda, and it's advocates are not the Avant Garde. They are an 'established' and 'historical' provider. This is the point Astyk seems to be making as well.

Meanwhile, the US installed 5gw of Wind Capacity last year. That's by all rights NEW, even if it's an age-old power source. Are proponents of Windmills and Solar Panels 'Reversalists' or 'Technophiles'? The point is that the term is overly vague, and most likely divisive.

Computers are 'New' and 'Modern'.. but if you're running Win3.1, you are clearly a wierdo who is stuck in the distant past. Right?

Bob

Actually, in the case of photvoltaics you have this backwards. Fermi built a pile in 1942. The transister was invented in 1947 by Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain. Nuclear power is a much less sophisticated means of power generation, as can be seen from the term pile. It's tolerances are mainly to do with the extreme hazards. The tolerances for PV are actually much higher owing to the need for extreme purity of the semiconductor (eight nines). Only recently has it seemed possible to relax these a bit. However, the development of PV promises much better EROEI compared to nuclear power and much reduced safety issues. That PV appears simpler has more to do with the greater elegance of the physics compared to the rather crude production of dangerous mid-mass radionuclei involved in fission.

Chris