Where are we going to get the money to build nuclear power stations or to keep the ones we have running as the age? Where will we get the money to clean up our own nuclear cartography?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed you were talking about Government Money for the research. What you mention would come from existing industry as it struggles to meet demand and government regulation. The kind of money you are talking about would either have to come from a government or a very large power company. Whoever builds it first is going to own the rights to the technology, unless it is developed by public funds and patented on a public license.
Right now, governments simply do not have the monies to put into the kind of R&D, and will not for the foreseeable future, that would be necessary to bring this kind of technology to the market place in the time period given. These kind of articles, not just concerning energy technologies, are the life blood of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. How many have we actually seen come to pass and make to market, when they do, in the time periods predicted?
Perhaps the best approach would be for the government to announce that in 10 years, say Jan 1, 2023, all coal/fossil fuel plants must be replaced and closed by that date. Wouldn't cost the government anything and would force the industry to put out the money for new Nuke plants, Geo-Thermal, solar and other means of producing power. The government could really make money on the deal two, set a date in two years where the tax rate applied to power generation from Fossil fuels will go up by 10% per year. The first two years is so the generation companies can get replacements built prior to the increase.
And please do not try to make me argue against your strawman argument.
What strawman? That our existing infrastructure is aging, based highly upon fossil fuels and will not meet our needs for the next 30 years without the building of new plants? Or perhaps that predictions about future technology reaching the market have never been met?
What I am asserting is that we need to make advances in power production not just keep spending money on old technology. And nuclear power plants are old technology.
I never said we didn't need to. I clearly stated that "we have to work with existing technologies to survive to the point that other means become available."
To assume Nuclear technology is fully matured and cannot be advanced any further is ludicrous nonsense. If nuclear is so advanced, why do we not have nuclear battery powered electric vehicles?
I dont know if you read the article that I linked, but its talking about an endless supply of power. Given that it is in space the solar energy is much higher than on the surface. Such a power station could catapult the economy in a way that nuclear never could. You should really research the subject of that link before lumping it in with fusion and regular solar power.
Read, no, scan, yes. Beaming power from space is not a new idea, it's been in science fiction for a longtime. So has core-taps (actually may be the better way to go), FTL travel, etc, etc.
With the right investments, it could happen in that time frame. But that is a mighty big maybe to be banking trillions of dollars on. My prediction is that they will continue the R&D but nowhere near the level to meet time predictions.
Instead of beaming the power, using a "beanstalk" cable arrangement may actually be cheaper and easier to do. Carbon nano-tube technology has the math saying it is possible to run such a cable now, if you can find someone to fund it.