What’s your reference for that claim jgg?

First, a greenhouse effect is the trapping of IR radiation by GH gases.
Second, we woulf need to produce something like 1 Watt/m2 over the whole of Earths surface to equal the enhancement that’s calculated for GHG’s, ie 1 mW/km2, ie 500,000,000 mW over Earths entire surface, which works out at around 750 kW per person.

The world is safer with Iran not having nuclear weapons which it could deploy or allow terrorist groups to use, and would be safer still if the Islamist regime were overthrown.

Before anyone gets excited about fusion, a point made about 40 years ago was that holding CO2 constant, human use of energy from non-solar sources can only rise about 20 fold (relative to 1968 levels) before this creates a Greenhouse Effect due to increased production of waste heat that is then trapped. This is not because the amount of waste heat is large in relation to total insolation, but because its source is not insolation and hence it rapidly creates an imbalance. This is not uncommon in dynamically stable energy cycles.

Ultimately sustainability is about the rate and scale of energy and material throughput relative to natural systems.

BluePeter Says: We’ll be using fission reactors in our lifetimes. The price is coming down (see pebble bed reactors), reactors are smaller and safer, and the public will demand cheap energy.

Both oil and uranium fuels share similar outcomes.

So long as we all rely on fuels that are finite/expensive/localised and/or highly sought after we will continue to have wars.

The only way out is to choose safe and renewable fuels, and learn to keep our populations and energy demands low enough to live comfortably within that energy capacity. (but will the public ever accept it…?)

Never? That is hardly a rational statement.

We’ll be using fission reactors in our lifetimes. The price is coming down (see pebble bed reactors), reactors are smaller and safer, and the public will demand cheap energy.

It ‘aint the 50s….

tinyurl.com/2uzvg6

“General Fusion hopes to create small fusion reactors that cost around $50 million a piece and generate roughly 100 megawatts allowing for roughly 4 cent / kwh electricity. That’s about the same cost as coal.”

Think middle eastern nations rather than Islamic nations and four differences from Europe become apparent.
1. Many of the borders between middles eastern countries follow natural barriers such as deserts or mountain ranges. This creates the perception that fallout can be contained to the target nation or will affect only a small less inhabited region of the striking nation. That was never a consideration in Europe.
2. For most of those 50 years Europe was sandwiched between to MAD superpowers. If any euro nation nuked a neighbour it would almost certainly have been nuked or invaded by one or both of the superpowers in a preprogrammed emrgency response kneejerk defensive reaction.
3. Europe had fresh memories of the devastion of the WWII firebombings to galvanise public opposition to such action aginst any neighbour except in defence against invasion from the USSR.
4. Most european wars in the last few hundred years have been nationalistic or for “leibesraum”. A nuclear war is so obviously self defeating in that context that even the dumbest grand standing politician would never advocate it.

Fixating on religious differences between the west and the middle east diverts attention from more important political, economic and social differences that drive the conflicts both within the middle east and between the middle east and the west.

“United States Supports Saudi Arabian Civil Nuclear Program”

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/May/20080516160353idyb eekcm0.3394586.html