Please don't make political references in this thread."Public Will" and subsequent posts are primarily political, not purely scientific/economic, in my opinion. Not that I mind, but FAA has a policy against political debate. In my opinion, science and economics and science should drive energy decisions, and not so much other (forbidden) realms of thought. In other words, facts should have more weight than opinions or ideology.
It is not wise, in my opinion to shut an entire thread to be shut down because someone makes an ill-considered political assertion. That just makes the political prohibition even more draconian.
On the other hand, some sort of consensus IS required to make ANY substantial change to our energy infrastructure. That aggregate action/decision must by nature include public will and planning. But we can and should, by FAA rules, restrict our discussion to identification of the engineering choices (engineering encompasses the science, the technology, AND the economics) from which we need to choose viable alternatives, and plan incremental introduction of the required technologies. If you destroy the petro/gas infrastructure before building the new one, (whatever that might be) you CANNOT build the newer, more ecologically sound technologies. Transitional strategies are necessary. I think that building a lot of newer technology breeder nuclear plants buys time, since it is a PROVEN technology, for the other technologies to be researched, prototyped, and finally implemented, a process which will probably take well over 20-50 years to fully implement, if not significantly longer, on a global scale. For ANY energy infrastructure to become dominant, must be economically sound.
