I agree, nukes would be great - for this and other uses.
But re the "It takes more energy than it produces" argument: The figures I've seen are that it produces 1.35 times as much energy as is used to produce it.
There was some study a while back which DID claim it takes more energy than it makes, but that's since been debunked. Turns out the guy was using 25 yr old data for how much energy it took to produce a bushel of corn. Farmers have gotten a lot better over the years.
"There was some study a while back which DID claim it takes more energy than it makes, but that's since been debunked. Turns out the guy was using 25 yr old data for how much energy it took to produce a bushel of corn. Farmers have gotten a lot better over the years."
I own an ad agency and we have a market research division. It's very easy to skew the data sample collection process and subsequent "analysis". Even if this ratio were true, this research about 1.35 times/energy/corn oil replacement is not based on using a nuclear plant to fuel the conversion process.