Hello Gerhard,

>LL>Better to develop green energy than promote fossil fuels.
>
>What do you mean by "develop"?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and contribute to climate change.

>Solar panels do work, but not at night.

That's what batteries are for.

>Windmills do work, but only if there's wind.

The energy can be stored in batteries.  Same as with solar.

>A fossile power plant delivers power whenever you want it to - and that's
> what's missing on "green energy".

Energy sources such as oil and coal are finite, and not renewable.

>LL>China is the leader in this field.
>
>China is currently building and planning 31 nuclear power plants.

There are many different types of nuclear power plants.
However, there are problems with this technology, and accidents
do happen.  The question of what to do with existing waste has
never been resolved, with no apparent solution in sight.

How to build and plan safer nuclear power plants, such as
traveling waste reactors that "can actually consume existing
spent fuel waste" and other undesirable substances is a subject
well worth investigating.  AFAIK, no such reactors have ever
been built, much less tested.

In theory, traveling waste reactors produce wastes that
remain radioactive for hundreds rather than thousands of years.

The idea of traveling waste reactors is nothing new, the
basic principle having been worked out in 1958.  But serious
work on this never began in earnest until 2006.  The end
result being a great deal of work remaining to be done before
a commercially viable reactor is even remotely possible.

China has a population of almost one and a half billion people.
India has a population about the same size, maybe even larger.
These two countries alone are almost half the human race.
Throw in Pakistan and Indonesia and a few other third world
countries, and you are talking real numbers.

People can live without electricity.  But food and water
are absolute necessities of life.  If a people cannot water
their crops or grow their own food, we all know what will
happen.

Why are so many people from Syria seeking refuge in Europe?
It is not about religion, but survival.  That is the way I look
at it.  Really not much different than why so many people from
Mexico and Central America are seeking refuge in the US.

>They lost 250,000 people in the 70s when a hydroelectric dam broke, so
> they're trying to change to a safer technology.

Nuclear power is far from safe.  Much more work needs to be
done.  Otherwise, more nuclear disasters (such as what happened
in Ukraine and Japan) will continue to happen.

--Lee

-- 
Our Nuts, Your Mouth

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb