That argument smacks of "because it hasn't been done, it therefore can't be done".

It seems clear that there has been limited investigation of the practical use and conditions of pebble bed reactors. In such a case, to axiomatically religate it to the dustbin makes little sense. Guns were a raging failure until the Arquebus, and that took about a 1000 years of development. By your reasoning, we would still be fighting with english bows.

One of the reasons the Nuclear industry is so deeply government tied is because it involves state secrets, deep and perhaps over-blown popular fears, nuclear weaponry and a few very public failures.

Indeed, the nuclear industry began as a state run industry, and given its very nature it will probably never leave the fold entirely.

But that doesn't mean it will never work. State science and engineering is capable of pulling off a few moon landings now and then.

I am a sceptic of nuclear power, not because of ay hyperbolic fears, but because even thought he risk of reactors having a catastrophic failure are absurdly low, build enough of them and run them long enough and probability will get you.

If a reactor design can be ran and tested somewhere in this world that is truely "walk away safe", and simple and effective waste storage procedures can be demonstrated, then I'll hop right on the atomic bandwagon.

Until then, maybe it SHOULD be the preview of government funded science...

And lets face it, fusion is always over the horizon (blame whatever, thats not the point)- and it loos like there are MANY generations of technical evolution needed to make Solar/wind/thermal work efficiently enough to take over from fossile fuels.

One way or another, sooner or later, the Well WILL run dry. Then what do we do?

Davin L.