First off, B&W already has a reactor that could be up within 5 years. They are nervous about demand. What is needed is a guaranteed number of reactor buys (say 10 ) to get them moving again.

BUT, what is really needed is to focus on gen IV reactors esp. using thorium. They can burn up the old waste.

Now, with the last congress, I would have agreed with you. And IMHO, this coming CONgress is going to be a major fuck-up. HOWEVER, the GOP supports nukes. In addition, so does O. As such, I think that we will see an energy bill that will push new reactors.

Actually, Audi, GM, Ford, BMW, etc are all going to push FC cars. They are doing the EVs currently because California as well as Tesla forces the issue. But, other than nissan, all of the major car companies have said that the battery is dead and that FC are the way to the future.

That is why Gen 3 is so very important. When it comes out at say 35K and the owners have access to the Super Chargers AND Tesla is building out the new battery exchange mechanism, well, at that point, I think that the FCs makers will look foolish since relatively few cars will be sold while Tesla (and hopefully nissan) will be backed up.

BTW, I have issues with Nissan. The leaf is a POS. In fact, IMHO, all of the EVs are poorly designed except for Tesla. The leaf does not deal with heating/cooling of the batteries. The range SUX.

That was the original quote from beelsebob. He made it Europe vs. US, not me.

Look at the original discussion. It was about European vs. American rockets. It was not Ariane vs. F9.

While what you wrote is 100% accurate (as pertains to the efficiency), economics and regulations play major parts in deciding winners.
H2 is a disaster. BUT, if oil companies, along with all of the top 10 major car companies push it, it is POSSIBLE for them to win.
Now, with that said, I think that when Tesla releases Gen 3, I believe that it is all over. I think that the majority of buyers will INSIST on cars to be built like a tesla. And sales will slide for the top 10 companies.

FH is not really vaporware. It consists of 3 cores, which are fully flight tested. These are tied together via plumbing that is software controlled. Well, that part is fully tested as well. Remember those 6-12x where spacex announced louder than normal testing? Those were FH testing. What remains to test can only be tested in flight, which is the side separation. OTOH, explosive bolts are well known and tested. Iow, slim chance of issue there. What is holding back FH testing is that spacex is focused on stage recovery, along with dragon2 and that Kennedy needs to be modified for FH.

so, u can claim that it is vaporware, but, Russia, Europe, China, japan, american, and Indian launch groups say that it is close enough to reality that they can not compete. And I will trust their opinion, over yours.

He can also punish the company with lose of subsidies, contracts, etc.
And Boeing has recommended Ariane at times.

No, it was canceled and restarted because it was awarded wrong based on the stated criteria. Airbus out and out lost the contract based on what was the stated criteria. However, Airbus had other side offerings that was considered but should not have been.
Had the procurement officer done things correctly, then Boeing NEVER would have had a second chance at it, even had airbus won it.

This case has nothing in common with the other.

Ariane is NOT ahead and that is what has them scared.
The only way for Ariane 5 to be profitable is by launching 2 sats at once. The smaller sat is now much cheaper to fly on the current F9. When FH comes out this summer, it will be capable of launch multiple sats in 1 launch that will costs less than what Ariane 5 charges for just 1 of the 2 sats.

Keep in mind that Ariane gets an annual subsidy to do 5-7 launches / year. And this year, because SpaceX ate into their meal, Europe had to double it. If SpaceX successfully returns a first stage, I have no doubt that they will be offering much lower costs to future launches, which will guarantee that Ariane loses all commercial space. At that point, to remain viable, it will take several billion euros / year of subsidies to keep them afloat.

Oh, I am a believer in converting our coal into methane (great point energy). As you said, we can not have a monoculture. As it is, it was the fact that we allowed coal to grow to 60% of our electricity that is leaving America in its current situation.
BUT, if we allow coal to go to methane, and add nukes, and other AE, etc, well, that makes good sense.

not enough to matter. Far more important is to focus on changing the vehicles, not the source.

I did not characterize the best solution as right vs left. I said that both of you fools are just that: fools.
You can NOT stall out anything. Economics forces the issues. Tar Sands are economical at 40 / bl. As such, they are viable RIGHT NOW.
The right strategy is to move the west from oil to EVs, but use nat gas as the extender. Like H2, and electricity, Nat gas or Methane can be CARRIERS of energy.

yeah, the far right is not much better. However, the far left screams about Nat gas and says that it hurts things, when in reality, it is the smartest way to go.

Wether it is developed or not, does not change the emissions. The same amount of oil will be burned if it comes from tar sands or from a well. RIght now, you are making the issue one of tar sand vs. pumped oil. That is a no win situation. At best, it is a tactical issue.
HOWEVER, if you let keystone go through, while getting all NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (that burn that tar sand) to be using nat gas, and then doing EV with 'range extender' (basically serial hybrid), you start dropping the demand for diesel or tar sands. In addition, it will move the commercial vehicles into EVs

the far left need to quit thinking tactical and start thinking strategically. Otherwise, CO2 emissions will NOT drop.

in fact, the cars from before about 1950's burned gasoline, ethanol, diesel, or ..... kerosene. As such, they worked with the fueling stations that existed for heaters and lanterns.

And yet, most car makers and oil companies want to push H2
while Musk continues to push plain old electricity.
I wonder who is likely to win considering that in another 3 years, the Tesla model 3 will costs around 35K and they will be making 250K cars / year? That will put them in ~ top 25 car makers.