I’m a bit more optimistic about the 21st century outcome but we will go through some major pain before things settle down to an equilibrium with the planet. As more of us move into urban settings the birthrate will fall. That will be particularly important in the Developing World where urbanization is going on full steam. In the Developed World population, with the exception of the United States is close to plateau now and will start to drop. It already is in countries like Japan. Germany is at zero growth. So I don’t believe we will see the population continue to run amok although 9.5 billion is way too much for the current way we operate on Earth.

I think, like you, that nuclear fission is are best bet for sustainable, clean energy. But I also believe that renewables, combined with storage advances and smart grids will be a significant part of our future energy supply. And if we can cut the energy waste by half we can get rid of all those damn coal-fired power plants.

As always thanks for the terrific comments. You are my favorite reader.

I just don’t see any feasible technical alternative to fission reactors. The technical principles are generally understood and well proven. All the “green” alternatives such as wind and solar and bio-fuel and LENR and etc, are highly problematic, and can’t possibly produce enough energy at affordable costs to meet the ever growing demand. (Perhaps Polywell fusion will prove out, but I see no hope at all in giant Tokamaks.)
The best solution is, of course, dramatic population reduction, which would dramatically reduce energy demand and relieve most of the destructive pressure on the natural environment. But humanity doesn’t seem smart enough to rationally regulate its numbers, or even to regulate its economies so that everyone has productive employment. So the best we can do is for as long as possible stave off the day of environmental reckoning, while the band plays on, the deck lists even further, the idealistic green heads dash madly about insisting on a low fat diet, and we pray that some major fraction of the biosphere survives until AI or God imposes regulation of mankind’s numbers to a sustainable level. (Did you hear that the RMS Carpathia is making good speed through the icebergs toward our rescue?) The longer governments delay the inevitable shift to the smartest sorts of fission reactors (probably some variation on the present generation of forty-year sealed for life naval reactors), which lower fuel enrichment costs would enable, the more injury the environment must suffer.

I see coal-fired power plants as the greatest threat to humanity in the 21st century and like you believe that new nuclear technology makes a compelling choice and a pretty safe bet. The technology can also help resolve the waste problem inherent with older nuclear power plants making it a “green” solution. Governments need to take off the blinders and educate the public to the benefits instead of running and hiding from the NIMBYs.

((In your opinion is government stifling the evolution of nuclear out of fear of weapons proliferation or for some other cause?))
The US Government and the anti-nuclear lobby both say Silex technology in the US threatens to promote nuclear weapons proliferation in the rest of the world. Sounds like a false argument to me. If the rest of the world had cheap, safe, nonpolluting, sustainable nuclear power, which Silex technology promises, it seems it would be less interested in retarding its improved prosperity with acquiring nuclear weapons. The real threat to US and global security is the pollution from thousands of new coal-fired power plants, not nuclear weapons produced with cheaper uranium.

The Silex process is relatively high tech, and some “secrets” that are difficult to discover are involved. It’s unclear whether less developed nations could steal and implement the technology. It’s just plain stupid to argue we shouldn’t make steel because our enemies might use it to manufacture main battle tanks.

Thank you for your additional comments. I knew that CANDU used a rawer form of fuel than other reactor technologies but I didn’t know that the technology was influenced by a surplus in production of deuterium. In your opinion is government stifling the evolution of nuclear out of fear of weapons proliferation or for some other cause?

Eventually cascades of advanced centrifuge designs proved more economical than gaseous diffusion enrichment methods and plutonium became super abundant. So economics of power production forced abandonment the un-enriched natural uranium designs in favor of large water-cooled and moderated enriched fuel (3.5-5%) designs. (Small naval reactors requiring fuel enrichment above 50% U-235 being an exception, but there the costs per thermal unit are likely ten times greater than in commercial reactors.)

The whole nuclear power industry is now at a tipping point. Smaller safer designs are only possible to implement with more highly enriched fuel, say in the range of 25 to 30%. In the past, such fuel enriched by centrifuges would have proved far too expensive to be commercially competitive. GE-Hitachi has already built and tested a new technology laser pilot plant to slash uranium enrichment costs by a huge factor, probably in the range of 600% to 800%. But so far the US Government refuses to allow construction of a large-scale commercial Silex laser enrichment plant. (Should be obvious, with such low enrichment costs, natural reserves of uranium ores would be vastly extended, and the molten salt/thorium designs could be shelved for at least another century)
In short, small, modular, fission nuclear power plants are the smart way to go for new power needs, if only governments would get out of the way. But who is going to invest in advanced design small, modular, and safe, nuclear power plants with governments strangling the fuel production technologies?