Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
More greens defect to nuclear power
#1
A green heretic persecuted for his nuclear conversion
Quote:Except, well, I don’t believe that any more. Just a month ago I had a Damascene conversion: the Green case against nuclear power is based largely on myth and dogma. My tipping point came when I discovered just how much nuclear power has changed since I first set my mind against it. Prescription for the Planet, a new book by the American writer Tom Blees, opened my eyes to fourth-generation “fast-breeder” reactors, which use fuel much more efficiently than the old-style reactors, produce shorter-lived waste and can also be designed to be “walk-away safe”.

Best of all, these new reactors – prototypes of which have already been tested – can produce power by burning up existing stocks of nuclear waste. As Blees puts it: “Thus we have a prodigious supply of free fuel that is actually even better than free, for it is material that we are quite desperate to get rid of.” Who could object to that?

When will Algore endorse?

The pro nuclear evidence seems ever more compelling. Note however, it is not renewable.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#2
jt Wrote:The pro nuclear evidence seems ever more compelling. Note however, it is not renewable.

I thought 'breeders' created more fissile material than they burned up, and were able to renew themselves? This came about as a result of converting U238 to mainly U235, and very small amounts of PU239..
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#3
jt Wrote: A green heretic persecuted for his nuclear conversion
Quote:Except, well, I don’t believe that any more. Just a month ago I had a Damascene conversion: the Green case against nuclear power is based largely on myth and dogma. My tipping point came when I discovered just how much nuclear power has changed since I first set my mind against it. Prescription for the Planet, a new book by the American writer Tom Blees, opened my eyes to fourth-generation “fast-breeder” reactors, which use fuel much more efficiently than the old-style reactors, produce shorter-lived waste and can also be designed to be “walk-away safe”.

Best of all, these new reactors – prototypes of which have already been tested – can produce power by burning up existing stocks of nuclear waste. As Blees puts it: “Thus we have a prodigious supply of free fuel that is actually even better than free, for it is material that we are quite desperate to get rid of.” Who could object to that?

When will Algore endorse?

The pro nuclear evidence seems ever more compelling. Note however, it is not renewable.

Breeder reactors can "burn" the nuclear waste.

Plus we only have at least a 300 year supply.It is actually more than that when including other isotopes.
Reply
#4
I believe you don't have a lot of regulations that forbid the construction of nucular plants. However, it has come to a standstill in America too, hasn't it? Can we assume those thingis are a bit uneconomic, or what's the reason?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#5
Breeder's can't do anything unless they are allowed to recycle.

At least McCain is pushing for recycling.
Reply
#6
One of the commenters hit it right,the fanatic environmental idiots don't care to solve the question of how do we have energy,security and clean environment. They want to diminish civilization.

If we could arrange it where they had to live w/o electricty and we didn't,we could solve both problems,energy/environment/security and pleasing insane citizenry.
Reply
#7
quadrat Wrote:I believe you don't have a lot of regulations that forbid the construction of nucular plants. However, it has come to a standstill in America too, hasn't it? Can we assume those thingis are a bit uneconomic, or what's the reason?

Warren Buffet's power company declined to build a new one, because it was uneconomic.

AFAIK, one of the main problems is the number of regulatory bodies that must give approval before the plant is built. This eats time and money. The best fix to this would be standardized approved designs, and the reduction in local regulatory power.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#8
I looked it up, the last nucular reactor in the U.S. came online 02/07/1996. Here's how nucular power developed since the beginning. The first commercial one was, BTW, a Russian reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nucle...istory.png
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#9
Nuclear power generation IS un economic,due regulatory causes and to legal liabilities.

That has to change before it can re-start here.
Reply
#10
Some people are applying for permits to build, nonetheless.

Link1
Link2
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#11
The Eco-Wackos have been the major stumbling block, by tying everything up in lawsuits. They will still try this, but the congress, and the citizenry are no longer sympathetic to them now.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#12
John seems to have problems with the term 'nuclear power is uneconomic' Watched a docu about the Lithuanian reactor in Isalina (or so) recently, they employ more than 3,000 folks to produce a mere 750 MW. Well, enough for that dwarf state. Isalina is supposed to be shut down next year, that was a condition for their promotion to the EU (that's a Chernobyl style reactor), but the Lithuanians evidently forgot that, and want to run the station for many more years. Another trouble with nucular power, Isalina overheated the lake it uses for cooling and it's biology collapsed. It's the largest lake of that nation. Without vast amounts of cold water nearby, one can't construct those plants.

I wonder whether it's really the environmentalists responsible for the reduction of nucular power recently, or rather the nice profits made with fossil fuel. I guess Exxon's got a couple more loyalists than all environmental movements of this world combined, and also more funds.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#13
quadrat Wrote:John seems to have problems with the term 'nuclear power is uneconomic' Watched a docu about the Lithuanian reactor in Isalina (or so) recently, they employ more than 3,000 folks to produce a mere 750 MW. Well, enough for that dwarf state. Isalina is supposed to be shut down next year, that was a condition for their promotion to the EU (that's a Chernobyl style reactor), but the Lithuanians evidently forgot that, and want to run the station for many more years. Another trouble with nucular power, Isalina overheated the lake it uses for cooling and it's biology collapsed. It's the largest lake of that nation. Without vast amounts of cold water nearby, one can't construct those plants.

I wonder whether it's really the environmentalists responsible for the reduction of nucular power recently, or rather the nice profits made with fossil fuel. I guess Exxon's got a couple more loyalists than all environmental movements of this world combined, and also more funds.
-----------------
Ignalina is the name.

Well, if they fix the technical issues I am sure the EU will let them continue the use of Ignalina since that power station accounts for much of the electricity they use in that small country.

Cooling water from nuclear or coal-fired reactors make the same problem, it is heating the lakes where it flows into. But it might also change the fish fauna so that other kinds of fish might increase...

/track_snake
Reply
#14
Is there a possibility that this "waste heat" could be used for other purposes? Some people know how to capitalize on this low grade energy. Do the Lithuanians?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#15
The CEO of my firm is sold on the idea of a nuclear comeback,his business model is predicated on it. Energy Solutions.

One would think he's right,but with this nation's delusions,who knows? We've been in war for years with oil producing folks and we still aren't drilling for it here in broad areas,at this time I find it plausible to state,America is under strong delusion.

One simply cannot bet cash on us making rational judgements right now.
Reply
#16
track_snake Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:John seems to have problems with the term 'nuclear power is uneconomic' Watched a docu about the Lithuanian reactor in Isalina (or so) recently, they employ more than 3,000 folks to produce a mere 750 MW. Well, enough for that dwarf state. Isalina is supposed to be shut down next year, that was a condition for their promotion to the EU (that's a Chernobyl style reactor), but the Lithuanians evidently forgot that, and want to run the station for many more years. Another trouble with nucular power, Isalina overheated the lake it uses for cooling and it's biology collapsed. It's the largest lake of that nation. Without vast amounts of cold water nearby, one can't construct those plants.

I wonder whether it's really the environmentalists responsible for the reduction of nucular power recently, or rather the nice profits made with fossil fuel. I guess Exxon's got a couple more loyalists than all environmental movements of this world combined, and also more funds.
-----------------
Ignalina is the name.

Well, if they fix the technical issues I am sure the EU will let them continue the use of Ignalina since that power station accounts for much of the electricity they use in that small country.

Cooling water from nuclear or coal-fired reactors make the same problem, it is heating the lakes where it flows into. But it might also change the fish fauna so that other kinds of fish might increase...

/track_snake

They can radiate most of the heat away.It depends on the design of the nuclear plant.

The one in my back yard does that.It works well enough.That the discharge into the river is barely warm at all.
Reply
#17
track_snake Wrote:Cooling water from nuclear or coal-fired reactors make the same problem, it is heating the lakes where it flows into. But it might also change the fish fauna so that other kinds of fish might increase...
Huh? 100% of the waste heat of nucular plants ends up in the cooling water. In coal plants, it passes trough the chimney.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#18
quadrat,

It's not a technical or engineering problem. It's a marketing problem. The French have nailed it. Bringing in a few of their propagandists is he one of the few French imports that I could really get behind and support.

They've perfected a recycling method that virtually eliminates the nasty waste toxic problem ... as long as you ignore a big pipe that extends way out into the Atlantic. It's a work of genius! And it's how they make 80% of their electricity. The logical next step is to sell the excess thermal exhaust to StarBucks. Wink1
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#19
No dear mr_yak, nothing's going to happen. Your oil, gas, and coal industries will thwart it for many more years.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#20
quadrat Wrote:No dear mr_yak, nothing's going to happen. Your oil, gas, and coal industries will thwart it for many more years.

Well, truth be told quadrat, we DO have lots and lots and lots of coal. But the fuel costs for nukes ($/Mw-hr) are less than half that of coal ... however, the regulatory costs more than make up the difference. Again, the real issue is marketing not technical or engineering 'problems'.

The U.S. needs to do a Peenemünde-like evacuation of Areva in France of some of their top notch nuke advertising brainiacs and bring them back here and turn them loose! Then Katie-bar-the-door!! Wink1
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Co-founder of Greenpeace endorses Nuclear Power. mv 15 8,844 07-09-2019, 02:03 PM
Last Post: John L
  Nuclear Power for Dummies Pixiest 2 1,893 03-15-2011, 10:10 PM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Will tiny reactor make nuclear power practical? Aurora Moon 3 1,820 07-05-2009, 01:45 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes Canuknucklehead 19 4,237 11-14-2008, 03:21 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)