- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,230
- 1,701
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
* Today's Gen3.5 nukes are SAFE. They could easily survive Fukishima's tidal wave. They have awesome external cooling gear, but even if these all fail, the heart of the reactor itself is our safety feature! If the fuel rods over-heat, they expand and leak neutrons. This shuts down the reaction. 'Neutron Leak' means it is physically impossible for today's reactors to melt down. Banning SAFE modern nukes because of Chernobyl or Fukishima is like banning modern aviation because of the Hindenberg.
* Tomorrows Gen4 nukes will EAT NUCLEAR WASTE! I nearly fell over backwards when I learned that G.E.'s S-PRISM will eventually burn nuclear waste, and that just today's nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years!
* James Hansen says nuclear is the only way we'll solve climate change. He says believing in wind and solar is akin to "believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid « BraveNewClimate
If we listen to him on climate, why not on the solution?
* Gen4 nukes are the forever machine!
A/ We can extract uranium from seawater at $300 a kilogram.
B/ This is about the size of a golf ball and could power your entire life, cradle to grave, on just $300 fuel! (Nukes themselves are the expensive bit, the fuel is dirt cheap).
C/ As continents move and mountains rise, rain and weathering grind uranium dust back down into the sea faster than we could use it. In this way Gen4 nukes really could run the world for hundreds of millions of years on the uranium in sea-water.
* We KNOW the physics works. We already have over 300 reactor-years proving the physics of burning 'waste' in prototype reactors like the EBR 2.
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
* IF something better comes along we can shift to it then! But it's wiser to act on known technology rather than wishful thinking. Renewables sound nice, but can't do the job at any price we could afford. It's the cost of backing them up when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing. They should be called 'unreliables' instead. Read Professor Barry Brook, head of Climate Department at Adelaide University.
Renewable Limits « BraveNewClimate
* Dreams and good intentions with renewables are not going to solve the Global Warming crisis. Only hard nosed, tried and true engineering solutions can save us. But, unlike James Hansen, too many environmentalists seem to believe in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy of wind and solar, and seem too paranoid and uninformed about nuclear. But this is changing. George Monbiot used to be anti-nuclear, but now supports the best in safe, modern, waste-eating nukes. Nuclear waste is now not the problem but the SOLUTION to the world's most urgent problems!
* Tomorrows Gen4 nukes will EAT NUCLEAR WASTE! I nearly fell over backwards when I learned that G.E.'s S-PRISM will eventually burn nuclear waste, and that just today's nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years!
* James Hansen says nuclear is the only way we'll solve climate change. He says believing in wind and solar is akin to "believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid « BraveNewClimate
If we listen to him on climate, why not on the solution?
* Gen4 nukes are the forever machine!
A/ We can extract uranium from seawater at $300 a kilogram.
B/ This is about the size of a golf ball and could power your entire life, cradle to grave, on just $300 fuel! (Nukes themselves are the expensive bit, the fuel is dirt cheap).
C/ As continents move and mountains rise, rain and weathering grind uranium dust back down into the sea faster than we could use it. In this way Gen4 nukes really could run the world for hundreds of millions of years on the uranium in sea-water.
* We KNOW the physics works. We already have over 300 reactor-years proving the physics of burning 'waste' in prototype reactors like the EBR 2.
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
* IF something better comes along we can shift to it then! But it's wiser to act on known technology rather than wishful thinking. Renewables sound nice, but can't do the job at any price we could afford. It's the cost of backing them up when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing. They should be called 'unreliables' instead. Read Professor Barry Brook, head of Climate Department at Adelaide University.
Renewable Limits « BraveNewClimate
* Dreams and good intentions with renewables are not going to solve the Global Warming crisis. Only hard nosed, tried and true engineering solutions can save us. But, unlike James Hansen, too many environmentalists seem to believe in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy of wind and solar, and seem too paranoid and uninformed about nuclear. But this is changing. George Monbiot used to be anti-nuclear, but now supports the best in safe, modern, waste-eating nukes. Nuclear waste is now not the problem but the SOLUTION to the world's most urgent problems!