We need more research, not the same old expensive power plants that have failed in the free market.

The fact that there are lots of idiots who overhype the dangers of nuclear power does not automatically mean that nuclear power is a cost-effective method of electricity generation.

For more technical analysis see the Union of Concerned Scientists. The folks there know A LOT more about the economics of current-generation nuclear power than you do:

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

So… lets see what happens first, fusion or SPSs. If the latter happens first and becomes widespread, you’re right. Surely if there’s so much energy to be had so (relatively) easily, why wouldn’t there be efforts to do it? If the efforts do crop up, and if it is indeed practical, it should become real while fusion is still lingering in the pipeline.

In the end, only time will tell.

Oh, and by the way, before killing NIF and the U.S’ ITER stake in favor of a (much more expensive) SPS program, why not try cutting the funding for, say, a new class of aircraft carriers, or those glorified stealth cruisers, or one of any number of white elephant weapons programs out there? Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see SPSs out there as much as the next guy, I just don’t think fusion research should be killed to fund it.

In the US it will be done by private companies. These companies will have one concern, money. To earn more money they will cut corners on safety in design and in training or hiring trained personal to run the plants. The government which will be the one who regulates the plants, will not do its job. The companies will instead spend a great deal of money on lobbyists and direct campaign contributions as well as hirings to engage in a full on regulatory capture of the inspection regime.

Thus there is nothing inherently wrong with nuclear power, we can make it fairly safe, but we won’t. Because we’re Americans, and what business wants, business gets in this country. And if people die? Well that’s freedom.

Your view is as blind as your mistaken analysis of the Frankenstein story suggested it was likely to be. No small part of the message of Shelly’s Frankenstein is a warning about acting in hubristic enthusiasm before thinking. In that story the very act of creating the creature, while in no way the creature’s fault, is a mistake of hubris on the part of a smart man who knows what he can do, but not why he shouldn’t do it.

What does one do with the waste which will be dangerously radioactive for longer than will be the climate damage done by the CO2?

They also pale in comparison with the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a populated area, however that might come about (e.g., terrorist attack, preemptive strike, accidental launch, etc.). I’ve long thought that the passion displayed by the anti-nuclear crowd was misplaced – what is vastly more scary is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility that they may someday be used. The consequences would make the Japan disaster look pathetically insignificant.

Of course, when assessing the dangers of nuclear power, a little perspective is always useful. If one wants to compare the impact on lives and health of coal burning versus nuclear power, both direct and indirect, there is absolutely no contest, and it’s likely to remain that way. Thousands of coal miners die worldwide every year from industrial accidents and the cumulative effect of breathing dirty air from coal-burning plants on the health of the millions has got to be profound.

Great idea if the learning curve did not entail leaving huge tracts of radiated land barren for hundreds of thosands of years – and seriously effecting the health of some peiople thousands of miles away. A nuclear ‘accident’ is a long way from an automobile collusion – the large social consequences ensure that.

If nothing else, it is time to ‘rethink’ reliance on nuclear power generation.

Unfortunately you are beginning to sound like “clean coal” – it does not exist, has not existed and probably will never happen – but the advocates (or their well paid toadies) insist “If we can just ______ (fill in the blank), all will be fine.” Promethetus is a fine myth and Mary Shell’s work an entertain bit of romantic literature – but to have an entire society dependent upon either one is a jump too far.

And you claim that freaking solar power satellites, which have NEVER been built or tested before, could be done faster than fusion, which has been steadily refined for half a century and is still progressing at a slow but measured rate, and safer than fission, which is in successful use already with only a tiny number of (highly exaggerated) failures? Gee, whiz…

(Not that the SPS is itself a bad IDEA, but it’s certainly no reason to quit fusion and in no way more practical than nuclear energy from the present-day standpoint)

Matters are somewhat complicated by the fact that there are two authorized editions of Frankenstein, the original published in 1818, and a second published in, IIRC, 1828. The first edition is generally pro-science and strongly humanistic. By 1828, Mary had changed her politics and gotten involved in the Anglican Church, and, influenced by the then-popular stage play, incorporated some anti-science language into the second edition. However, the second edition is hardly “profoundly” anti-science, but more of a concession to the emerging Victorian moral climate.

Georg is quite right about the influence of Galvani’s work, but Humphrey Davy was arguably a stronger influence on Mary’s ideas about science. There is also the generally Gothic influence of the alchemical mysticism of John Dee and Paracelsus that fascinated Romantics like Shelley and Byron.

One important detail of the novel is that the Creature is not crafted from stolen body parts. Victor Frankenstein does obtain cadavers, but he used them primarily to study anatomy and taphonomy. The Creature is basically Enlightenment engineering with a bit of alchemical magic to speed things along.

I don’t think grave-robbing was especially potent in the British imagination until the Burke and Hare case exploded later in the 19th c., after Mary’s time.

Suppose a terrible traffic accident is caused when a rather lackadaisical driver loses control of his car due to a rusted-out axle and a half flat tire (or even more appropos, a 40 car pile-up on I80 due to someone without snow chains). The response isn’t that cars should be banned or that automobiles are inherently harmful or even that the industry itself is bad, regardless of how you actually feel about cars and GM. The correct response, im my opinion, is that the protections in place to keep people from driving under unsafe conditions failed in this circumstance and need to be scrutinized.

I believe these sorts of analogies describe the situation of the accident in Japan well. We need nuclear power. Certainly Japan needs nuclear power. Let’s make sure its used safely.