Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

benf;
Notwithstanding a load or two of media-promoted common false knowledge and political bumpf, your summary of the bind that environmentalists are in is accurate. FF, however, will hyper-green the environmentalists into silence, I think. It is so squeaky clean and resolves so many “issues” that they’d have to commit cognitive hari-kari to reject it. But the process does involve Atoms, which are dangerous things, you know … 😉 :coolsmirk:

But there is no transmutation other than changing boron+hydrogen into common helium. “Dangerous” transmutation is a fission thing, and to some extent a fast neutron problem. None of that. No transport and burials necessary.

And we Deniers don’t think burning or not burning coal or oil has squat to do with the climate; it’s a non-issue except insofar as the Warmists want to ride that horse to wealth and power beyond the dreams of avarice and megalomania. (Think control of every energy generation and use activity on the planet.) Here’s an Australian response:
Back to the Nineteenth Century

Excerpt:

“The Greens do not particularly want a carbon-free world.
They want a world in which there are many fewer people; they want a world in which
those people who are left are subordinate to nature, living very frugal but more equal
lives under the guidance of an elect caste of high priests who decide on the doctrinal
issues which arise under such a regime. The Greens are an authoritarian sect, with a
new religion to establish, and for them nuclear energy is anathema, since it promises
energy in abundance for a world with even more people than we have today.”

My motto: “Conservation is nice. Surplus is (much) better.”