Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power

On Aug 23, 1:43*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:

I only quote the most hilarious bits of that, stupid.

But yourself and Mook have supposedly always had all the best answers,
as well as all the "right stuff" to go along with it. So, for more
than the past couple of decades, what exactly have you two been
waiting for?

btw, why don't you quote the entire Old Testament if that's what makes
you a happy camper, by filling up each reply so that you seem more
important.

~ BG

On Aug 13, 3:15*pm, Immortalist wrote:
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases
energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small
and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer
reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world
is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants.

Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy
source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production,
and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology.

Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no
air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil
fuel combustion.

Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course
to achieve energy independence for most Western countries.

Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history
of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident
or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and
the disadvantages of centralized electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste
from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully
looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to
United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).

High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can
still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100%
security. A small probability of failure will always last. The
consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for
human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more
nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built,
the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the
world.

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred
targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world
could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a
terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is
produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear
weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power
plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons
(nuclear proliferation).

The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce
resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60
years depending on the actual demand.

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new
nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in
the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build
new nuclear power plants in a short time.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab...

In the mean time we could have fixed most everything as of three
decades ago, via thorium, geothermal, wind and better hydroelectric,
not to mention one or two less wars would have had us trillions in the
black. But of course, most here wouldn't have changed one damn thing,
even if they could.

~ BG

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
BradGuth wrote just the puerile ****
thats always pouring from the back of it.

On Aug 24, 12:04*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
BradGuth wrote just the puerile ****
thats always pouring from the back of it.

If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as of
at least a decade ago, then there must be more than a little something
wrong or skewed with your supposed affordable plan of action, or
rather perpetual do-nothing except sustain the status-quo and Big
Energy plan of inaction.

~ BG

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
BradGuth wrote just the puerile ****
thats always pouring from the back of it.

: BradGuth
: In the mean time we could have fixed most everything as of three
: decades ago, via thorium, geothermal, wind and better hydroelectric,
: not to mention one or two less wars would have had us trillions in the
: black. But of course, most here wouldn't have changed one damn thing,
: even if they could.

Oh, I can think of one damn thing I would have changed.

However. Geothermal. Average tenth watt per square meter. Even in very
thermally active regions, it's not much more if drawn at a sustainable rate.
Far better off with thermal solar.

I'm sure the thouands upon thosuands of square kilometers flooded by
hydroelectric projects are just acceptable collateral damage (four
thousand square kilometers for 10 gigawatts in Venezuela for example,
vs less than a hundred square kilomters for the same 10 gigawatts via
nuclear; not even the most efficient of the hydro projects built in
the most favorable narrow gorges to flood the least area do as well).
And I'm sure the tens or hundreds of thousands displaced are ever so
grateful that folks think it's a panacea.

However, if we ignore environmental impact to look only at human safety,
and hence methods that yield less than 1 death per gigawatt year, you're
left with natural gas, hydro, wind, and nuclear. Hm. Not sure about
geothermal and thermal solar, the statistics I find don't cover them.
They're probably comparable to wind. Of these, nuclear is the safest by a
wide margin, and has by far the least environmental impact, and the only
one that has significant quantity and can be deployed anywhere; all the
others are sharply limited as to viable sites, and sharply limited as to
maximum capacity.

Oil, of course, has the worst safety at a bit more than four deaths per
gigawatt-year, followed by coal, at a bit less than three.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

: BradGuth
: If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
: figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as of
: at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Aug 24, 2:28*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: BradGuth
: In the mean time we could have fixed most everything as of three
: decades ago, via thorium, geothermal, wind and better hydroelectric,
: not to mention one or two less wars would have had us trillions in the
: black. *But of course, most here wouldn't have changed one damn thing,
: even if they could.

Oh, I can think of one damn thing I would have changed.

However. Geothermal. Average tenth watt per square meter. *Even in very
thermally active regions, it's not much more if drawn at a sustainable rate.
Far better off with thermal solar.

Your obviously spiteful negativity imposed on geothermal is noted.
You must really hate/despise Steven Chu.


I'm sure the thouands upon thosuands of square kilometers flooded by
hydroelectric projects are just acceptable collateral damage (four
thousand square kilometers for 10 gigawatts in Venezuela for example,
vs less than a hundred square kilomters for the same 10 gigawatts via
nuclear; not even the most efficient of the hydro projects built in
the most favorable narrow gorges to flood the least area do as well).
And I'm sure the tens or hundreds of thousands displaced are ever so
grateful that folks think it's a panacea.

However, if we ignore environmental impact to look only at human safety,
and hence methods that yield less than 1 death per gigawatt year, you're
left with natural gas, hydro, wind, and nuclear. *Hm. Not sure about
geothermal and thermal solar, the statistics I find don't cover them.
They're probably comparable to wind. *Of these, nuclear is the safest by a
wide margin, and has by far the least environmental impact, and the only
one that has significant quantity and can be deployed anywhere; all the
others are sharply limited as to viable sites, and sharply limited as to
maximum capacity. *

Oil, of course, has the worst safety at a bit more than four deaths per
gigawatt-year, followed by coal, at a bit less than three.

Wayne Throop * *http://sheol.org/throopw

Then by all means, go with conventional nuclear (not thorium) in your
backyard, along with all the waste and those hard-rock tailings.
Please accomplish the 1.5 TW as of a decade ago, and be sure to make
it dirt cheap energy (meaning cheaper than hydroelectric).

~ BG

On Aug 24, 3:33*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: BradGuth
: If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
: figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as of
: at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. *That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

Wayne Throop * *http://sheol.org/throopw

In other words, even you can't sell it.

What's wrong with the failsafe thorium alternative?

~ BG

BradGuth wrote
(Wayne Throop) wrote
BradGuth wrote

If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as
of at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

In other words, even you can't sell it.

What's wrong with the failsafe thorium alternative?

It isnt working right now.

Yes it makes sense to make it viable, particularly for countrys which
dont currently have any nukes, because its better proliferation wise,
but that isnt necessary in the first world, india, china, russia etc
which arent a proliferation problem.