1.4GW !

The waste problems are solved and have been for years. You wait ten years for the really nasty stuff (such as I-131) to disappear altogether or reduce to low levels, then you bind up the rest in glass blocks and leave it (or use it for space heaters). I agree that we have the residue from teh bomb-making era, but that has nothing to do with it.

What have you been smoking? Do you imagine that we can arrange for fusion in the fission reactors, thus converting waste back to uranium?

And to recharge those 'batteries' when they've gone flat, or the reservoirs have run dry, at the same time as supplying the power to industry, homes and EV's in the normal way.

I made it near enough 300GW some years back.

Yes. Build enough nukes to remove all renewable energy, The nukes can have some which create molten slat heat banks which can be tapped for thermal energy to the boilers to cover peak demand.

Without renewables the demand will be predictable,. Some hydro and interconnectors to hydro covers the rest.

Enough small fission reactors to cover peak

Utter bollocks

When demand is off peak, some of

WTF are you on about?

When the

Nukes run in reverse? ey dont r7un in reverse. What utter nonsense

I I31 is gone in days, not years.

or reduce to

Strontium and caesium are the isotopes of concern. Several hundred years do disappear. But in that time harmless if sheilded

Can you explain how you convert the waste back to fuel, at least in outline if not in detail? After that, perhaps you could also describe how get gravity to work in reverse and water to run uphill.

Mmm, not quite. If you start with 1000 tons of the stuff (in practice there'd never be anything like that amount, but hey), it'll all be gone (that is, not a single atom remaining) in about 2 years and 8 months. It's a simple enough calculation.

Simply reverse time. Don't they teach kids anything nowadays?

I've no idea - not my field. But either that, we consume less, or the gap gets plugged by another form of non-carbon generation.

Yep.

So you're just belling the cat, then.

Not at all. Again (and as usual) you snipped context. *Until that time*, carbon intensive and/or nuclear.

I'd still like to see consumption fall - that's the quickest way to a win. But I accept that's unlikely.

With all domestic cooking and heating to be electric, not to mention those millions of EVs and all the data centres?

plus all the heat pumps and air conditioning......

With the population going up, so will consumption. And to cover the move to electric vehicles (if it continues), *lots* more generation will be required. And distribution, too.

And note that filling your electric tank is *never* going to be as fast (not even close) to the speed at which we can transfer energy (in the form of hydrocarbon fuels) today. I bet that people imagine that we can "develop" our way out of that one.

IMO, folk who don't understand this stuff because (perhaps) "it's not their field" should make an attempt to do so and to challenge (if they feel like it) assertions such as I made above or others make on the topic. What worries me is that what you see in the media is too many simplistic assertions such as that renewables have produced 50% or whatever over some period.

I'd rather that MPs did it. It would be nice if a few of them knew something about the world outside politics and the public sector. Preferably knowledge obtained independently of 'advisors' and 'lobbyists'.

Don't forget all the industrial processes that will change to electric when gas is banned.

\Not necessarily. If we consumed *in general* less stuff, consumption would go down. And I would argue that few fewer gadgets, blouses, cars and takeaways is well withing the grasp of most.

But for various reasons we all want more stuff, no matter the cost. Ho hum.

Seeings as cars spend most of their time stock still at or near home or work, I don't see that as an insurmountable problem. But then, I'm not the expert . . .

I don't understand *how* things will be done - I'll leave that to proper scientists. I simply know that they need to be done. I know that because I read half-decent media and the occasional book and journal. It's always interesting to listen to those that disagree, of course.

Can you publish your sources please?

I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to be able to show others.

Andy

There's a small wind farm a couple of hills over from my house.

I would say that more often than not at least one isn't going around.

Out of a dozen.

That is when it is windy of course.

Sometimes half the farm is down - presumably an electrical fault. It's always the left half, or the right half, not a mixture.

Andy