An interesting thought. However, it is cooling water, not fuel water so volume and mass situation may be a little different.

Cooling is radiative post-shock. The denser plasma cools more efficiently, proportional to the square of the electron density for a hydrogen plasma cooled by free-free radiation.

There is an omission in the summary, that is a build out by 2050. But, their fig. 8 does have substantially more nuclear power in 2020 than in 2010 and that seems quite unrealistic.

For the US a high Renewable, a high CCS and a high Nuclear scenarios are considered. Look at p. 180 and forward.

There is a problem with the high nuclear scenario in the report. It has a seven fold increase in nuclear power using Gen III reactors but with sea level rise eliminating tidewater sites, there may not be enough cooling available for that large an increase. Nuclear needs extra cooling because it is only about 30% efficient. A number of reactors are shut down already to avoid over heating rivers. Artificial lakes like lake Anna or the South Texas project might work, but you still need a water source to feed them.

The report also explores renewable and carbon capture scenarios so the problem with nuclear may not be a show stopper.

It is actually mid-century, not 15 years for that, but a seven fold increase over 2010 begs the question of where such reactors might be sited. Tidewaters are out owing to sea level rise and rivers are already under heat stress. So, Lake Anna cools not just twelve new reactors to boost its output, but another dozen to cover for Calvert Cliffs? The lake will be boiling.

RTFA: 'the technological paths available for the world's 15 main economies'

RTFA

A portion was left out of the summary. It is by mid-century that we'd see a big change over it the type of generation, not in 15 years. For the US, a renewable heavy, carbon capture heavy and nuclear heavy scenario were looked at. The energy security heavy scenario developed in "Reinventing Fire" by Amory Lovins was not explored. http://www.rmi.org/electricity

Didn't mention global warming here. I was discussing the link between subsidies and energy security. However, solar power lighting is much less expensive than kerosene powered lighting, so renewable energy helps with that as well in addition to opening up the possibility of cell phone changing.

Energy is a lot like roads an bridges in the way it promotes prosperity by its very existence. One can imagine a world where energy does not need military protection or special tax treatment, but it would be a world where national rivalries in power and economics are much subdues compared to the present. We're not there yet, but a rapid transition to renewable energy could probably get us closer more than just about any other move. Let's make the switch.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... "New Scientist reports that, faced with global warming and potential oil shortages, the US Navy is experimenting with making jet fuel from seawater by processing seawater into unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons that with further refining could be made into kerosene-based jet fuel.

More here: http://blogs.discovermagazine....