Stupidity> Science> Nuclear Energy Criticism

Cadarache in France will in 2007 see the start of the first nuclear-fusion reactor, were the nuclear process and the reactor in fact to function as planned. It is a technological, energy-political and potentially even an environmental gamble, but one that we should make.

Among others, the criticism voiced by Lorraine Mann on the BBC News is irrational and overly conservative. She commented that the solution was not suitable for the developing nations and would only be possible under a heavily centralized system and massive government funding - after all, it is forecast to cost a whopping 10 billion Euros and to take 35 years to build.

First of all, the developing nations that couldn't afford it will not, even in 40 years, need the couple of petawatthours that we globally used in 2000. China and India who of course clearly will, will be able to afford this form of energy and have also joined the consortium building the plant.

Second of all, were China to want to grow with the current energy input/economic output ratio, it were to require 6 times as many kilowatts per dollar of GDP than the US currently requires (will dig up calculations for that if you really want to see them). This could be a shortcut for providing this energy for the long run - although we clearly need to solve the fossil-fuel consumption issues in the Far East before the controlled fusion reactors will be functional.

Third - I'm guessing you will want to keep nuclear-fusion under centralized command and planning to begin with. Harnessing the same reactions that power stars should not be the first system to privatize on anyone's list. Somehow, I don't think that the Friends of Earth and anti-nuclear campaigners quite meant this, but just wanted to riposte the rhetoric.

There is quite nothing like investing in science, and it's good to keep in mind that conservative thought creeps in in the guise of left-wing and right-wing change resistance alike.