Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
I find it hard to accept an argument predicated on "but it would be so inefficient" over a 15% loss when in the next breadth the alternative suggested is nuclear power, whose losses due to inefficiency are somewhere between 65% and 73% depending on the model.
It seems like you're comparing apples and marmots just because the same name is used for both. Yes, "inefficiency" applies to both. Let's use an example.

All farming has some inherent inefficiency, but it doesn't matter to the end consumer except insofar as it effects the price they purchase the product for. Different ways of storing and using the product affect me as a consumer much more than the inefficiencies on the farming side as long as the price and quality of the produce creates a good value.

Imagine a situation where, say, bananas had a 65% efficiency, where 35% of the crop was lost or discarded before reaching the supermarket. Also imagine that avocado had a 90% efficiency. Now imagine that I said that I often buy banana instead of avocado because I can turn extra bananas into dehydrated banana chips, whereas avocado doesn't dehydrate properly due to its high fat content, so banana is more efficient for me to buy medium to large quantities of. If you responded that it was hard to accept my position because the inefficiency of banana farming is much higher than that of avocado farming, I wouldn't be able to take your rebuttal seriously.