Bitcoin Forum

Sixty-five of the world’s leading biologists are demanding the “historical antagonism” towards nuclear power from the green lobby end. In an open letter, the group is expected to claim it is too risky to replace fossil fuels with wind turbines and are calling for nuclear to be in the “energy mix” as it is the greenest technology of all.



They have concluded that of all the major ‘green’ energy sources, nuclear provides the best cost-benefit ratio. But it has long been opposed by green campaigners, who believe technologies like wind and wave power can meet western energy needs whilst cutting emissions.

The biologists point out that technologies like wind turbines have a far larger footprint than nuclear, pushing out wildlife. They believe the space freed up by nuclear energy could be used to promote biodiversity. “It is time that conservationists make their voices heard in this policy area,” says the open letter.

Although the full text of the letter is not available until it is published in next month’s Conservation Biology journal, some extracts have been published in the Independent.

One section reads: “Much as leading climate scientists have recently advocated the development of safe, next-generation nuclear energy systems to combat climate change, we entreat the conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy sources using objective evidence and pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is ‘green’.”

It continues: “Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimise net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energy-related biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals.”

The letter is being organised by Professor Barry Brook of the University of Tasmania, who has already co-authored a paper looking at how nuclear could be used to protect the environment. The group also includes the former government chief scientific adviser, Lord May of Oxford.

Another signatory, Professor Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide, said: “Many so-called green organisations and individuals, including scientists, have avoided or actively lobbied against proven zero-emissions technologies like nuclear because of the associated negative stigma.”

He continued: “Our main goal was to show – through careful, objective scientific analysis – that on the basis of cost, safety, emissions reduction, land use and pollution, nuclear power must be considered in the future energy mix.”

David Morris MP, Chairman of Conservative Friends of Nuclear Energy, welcomed the letter: “These scientists are right, nuclear has no emissions and is plainly the greenest energy source of them all.

“Heysham Nuclear Power Station in my constituency is surrounded by a wide variety of small animals and wild plant life. Filling the country with expensive, inefficient and ugly wind turbines represents a real threat to rural areas.

“I hope everyone will take note of what these experts are saying.”


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/05/nuclear-is-greenest-technology-claim-65-top-biologists/


--------------------------------------------------------
Finally...

Well, those green guys usually don't know what they talking about. Many of them talking rubbish about the greatness of solar panels and wind turbines but most of them unaware of the real world efficiency,  and the amount of energy consumed by the manufacturing process of these things.  ... ignorance is bliss.

Here is the greenest of all, in a few years it should be ready for mass deployment (results of the Lugano report):

9. Summary and concluding remarks
A 32-day test was performed on a reactor termed E-Cat, capable of producing heat by exploiting an unknown reaction primed by heating and some electro-magnetic stimulation. In the past years, the same collaboration has performed similar measurements on reactors operating in like manner, but differing both in shape and construction materials from the one studied here. Those tests have indicated an anomalous production of heat, which prompted us to attempt a new, longer test. The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test set-up, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here.
Our measurement, based on calculating the power emitted by the reactor through radiation and convection, gave the following results: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat beyond any other known conventional source of energy. Even if one conservatively repeats the same calculations with reference to the weight of the whole reactor rather than that of its internal charge, one gets results confirming the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 ∙ 104 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 ∙ 103 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density.
The quantity of heat emitted constantly by the reactor and the length of time during which the reactor was operating rule out, beyond any reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction as underlying its operation. This is emphasized by the fact that we stand considerably more than two order of magnitudes from the region of the Ragone plot occupied by conventional energy sources.
The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several methods before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium and Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before the run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take place via nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in the burning process. This is also what can be suspected from the excessive heat being generated in the process.
Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heating process would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and thus we refrain from such discussions.
In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.

My sister got infected with this shit recently and tried to infect me through talking about e-mobiles. I've tried to tell her that electricity should be produced at power station before she will be able to use it. She then answered me "I'll try to discuss this issue with guys from our company" and continued to tell me the same shit... E-mobiles will save the world blah blah blah...

They also have no idea that coal, oil and other natural fossils have significant amounts of uranium and thorium... As the result, coal powered plants introduced greater amounts of radioactivity than Chernobyl & Fukushima & all other accidents being combined.

whos gonna pay when (not if, when) tschernobyl and fukushima is gonna happen again?

of course nuclear is nearly emission free, but what about the question of security and final disposal?
there are types of nuclear reactors in development though that could be a big advantage in the area of security and final disposal - but until they work and run 20-30 years could have easily gone by...

Knock-Knock! It's ignorance knocking. ;D

 ::)

Personally I have no problem with radioactivity... It's an eternal and inevitable part of our world, just like air, water or sunlight:

http://i57.tinypic.com/709q4k.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/osv19l.jpg

(c) myself

However, I have problem with these greenpeace zombies, who have brought nothing but damage and growing entropy. ::)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Naturally-Occurring-Radioactive-Materials-NORM/

 ::)

I'm a biologist and I tend to agree. If we could get more from solar it would be the greenest, but it's just not enough to meet the demand. Nuke power is the only non-greenhouse option we have. Of course, when it goes wrong it goes very wrong and leaves places uninhabited, but our options are dwindling.

Wind and solar can very easily and constantly meet the demand.
http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/29/carl-pope-grid-reliability-myth

They would also already be way more abundant if it was a level playing field. But that's not the case. Nuclear and Oil receive way more subsidies (/benefits) than renewables. This is not a technological contest, it's political.

Solar panels and wind turbines scale very easily. They can be owned by governments, corporations, organisations and individuals. That's what gives them their potential. We used to have a few energy provides covering multiple nations. Now we have hundreds of grass-roots organisations supplying to the grid for each region (province level). Exciting times indeed.

Or let me phrase it different the word 'nuclear' is synonym for 'centralised'. That's why it surprises me to see so much support for it around here.

yeah, it's green alright.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Torbernite_-_Cuneo,_Italia_01.jpg

A mass worldwide adoption of nuclear power would be the most disastrous thing to ever happen to our human species, the environmentalists are so crazy about carbon dioxide they completely forgot about nuclear radiation. I haven't even gotten into how difficult it is to get rid of the nuclear waste involved with nuclear power and believe me, the more you learn about uranium and the methods used to create nuclear power the more you realise how utterly fucking terrifying it can be even in the right hands.

Japan ran their nuclear power plants like a military base and it still wasn't enough, it's just too unstable to use safely right now.

One thing for sure: the Soviets knew how to build their monuments to last  :D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZkgcVNUmLQ


I need that hand in my garden now. Just in case of a... flash.

balthazar could get a job at tschernobyl or fukushima and make a youtube diary on how healthy the radiation there is (helps against acne i heard)

 ::)

He's right. Nearly all coals containing small amounts of radon and radioactive uranium, thorium, barium potassium isotopes in concentration varying with the area where it is mined. Oil and natural gas contains radium and radon. In the ash all of these stuff getting concentrated. More details: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)

Chernobil and Fukushima was two pretty bad accident indeed but, across the world 10-30 thousands of people dying every year because of pollution generated by the coal burning power plants. So there is a hidden cost what we are actually paying day by day, and this isn't some "whos gonna pay when" type guessing, but hard facts.

no he is not.
and i even posted a source which is from the world nuclear association. only if the coal fuelled powerplant have no working filter system or pollution control the statement is correct.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Naturally-Occurring-Radioactive-Materials-NORM/




im trying to imagine instead of 2 coal fuelled powerplants we have 1 nuclear power plant.
we would have a ultimate MCA every 2-5 years?

for example:
the funny thing germany has by far (very far) the highest security standards for nuclear power plants, but it is still far from safe, we still have alot of problems happening all over the place.
i dont even wanna imagine how it would look like when third world countries and tiger states are running full on nuclear power.
without the right security nuclear power plants are not that different from a nuclear time bomb.


indeed, ignorance is bliss

I think these surges of environmentalism are something like chickenpox, or wild parties, almost every young people goes trough that but most of them going to recuperate without prolonged symptoms :). Don't worry, I'm sure she will be better soon :).

...and what about dumping the ash? As far as I know that stuff used to go into bricks, cement and landfills... and sometimes to Somalia ::)



There are lots of nuclear power plants in Europe and in the US. Do we have serious accidents in every 2-5 years? I don't think so.
Many of those third world countries and tiger states are already running nuclear power plants without any issues.

If you guys are not confident with your knowledge and safety practices about nuclear power plants, certainly you don't have to use those things ;).
BTW what will be next? When BMW will start breeding horses :)?

like the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants am i right? just that they are thousands times more toxic for the next 10.000 - 100.000 years  ::)

the source i gave you is from the biggest nuclear lobby in the world. as a nuclear power fan WNA should be your god, your dad and your mother at the same time.
and they say this is just a plain wrong statement.



1. i was thinking of a future where nuclear power plants are replacing coal fueled power plants.

2. please look up the numbers of existing nuclear power plants, coal fueled power plants and the respective ratio.

3. which 3rd world country has nuclear power plants? do tiger states really have more then a handful nuclear power plants?

4. the german security and technology standards regarding nuclear power is far superior to that of the us (and all other in the world) and we are not confident because we have problems.
that should tell you from the US something right? us security and technology standards are pretty much only on par with russia  :'(

5. do you know how many nuclear power plants has to be build so that mankind doesnt need coal anymore?


2-5 years per mca if mankind is lucky lol


/edit

about serious accidents, you should look up the history of nuclear power plants in the us again lol

There is some merit to this opinion. Nuclear power may be the greenest of the all available options, but it is the most risky technology at the same time. Remember we're yet to find a workable solution to get rid of the nuclear waste?

Nuclear energy is actually very safe. There are a very low number of nuclear "incidents" and most incidents involve no deaths/injuries.

The problem with nuclear energy is that when something bad happens it can potentially kill millions of people. On EV level nuclear power is probably more green then solar/wind energy

The problem is that people generally believe all nuclear power generation is the same, which is not true. Over time, various generations of plants have been designed and built, each significantly safer.  Current designs require operators to sustain their reaction, and default to safer states when things fail.  First and second generation reactors require operators to control the reaction, and faults can leave them in runaway conditions. 

1st generation reactors should be completely shut down (I don't think any are still in large scale operation).  2nd generation should be phased out and replaced with 3+ as soon as possible.

I agree to that. There are still some 1st generation reactors and mainly 2nd generation reactors running.
main problem here is the building cost & duration of new nuclear power plants.
Build time and cost is around 3-4 times to that of fossil fueled power plants.

And to be honest if cost would not play the main role we could just use regenerative energy.

Nuclear is the best way to assure a long term trace of having boiled water. I very dislike nuclear technology. It's a very sure way to have the best case example of why so called public-private partnership are Huuuugggeeee scam.

the public will :
- not be able to decentralize electricity production-storage-innovation due to the low subsidized cost of nuclear energy.
- have to carry the cost of subsidizing the energy production
- will not be able to maximize the conversion of watts to $.
- will not be able to get the fuck out of there (where ever it may be) on a timely fashion (private jet rdy).

the private will:
- not be able to decentralize electricity production-storage-innovation due to the low subsidized cost of nuclear energy.
- will benefits from the low cost of subsidized energy
- will be able to maximize the conversion of watts to $
- will be able to get the fuck out of there (where ever it may be) on a timely fashion (private jet rdy)
- will monster naked short those fç"* shares in case of event
- will profit from the construction, running, disposal of the waste and removal of the operation once old.
- will profit from the increase need of defense budget
...

but more generally speaking it's the lack of decentralization that nuclear technology induce, the inherent system risk of having a centralized energy production, and the inherent systemic risks of the nuclear energy production (a few mistakes and the nearby cities are ghosted faster than... forevermore... ). However I agree that the job that the nuclear industry does is quite interesting. How they have successfully dominate the news on this story... it's ironic that they can't master radioactivity as easily... the soviets learned it the hardway btw... but seems to have too forgotten what they may be ready to inflict upon generations of unborn for the sake of a few lights more at night... 1. decentralized energy production 2. decentralized energy storage... that will be the true alt :D.

edit: lame me, biologists :D.

edit2 : it's funny to think that life on earth is water based and that apparently nuclear wastes mix well with water... who knows, the space is wide and dark... only mind conquered by an out of earth life form can support such primitive technology. And frankly NT goes deeply against the philosophy of Earth as best space craft ever. At least now there is apparently still no need to wear a full nbc gear... if you want it hard go on the dark side of the moon or mars and beyond do your "innovations"-"science"-"wars"-"conflicts"-"pollutions".

edit3: you can still reduce a little (but if you get the "tail" it's anyway pointless) by imposing everyone involved to live 5 miles max radius around installations :D.

If we can figure out nuclear fission for helium we could make a shit ton of energy.

<spam>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00h0_Tq8ThA&feature=youtu.be
</spam>

 :D

Lol what a scam. Nuclear technology is deprecated and Geothermal is the future.

World's First NUCLEAR SALT REACTOR - Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIDytUCRtTA)

A liquified salt activator (MSR) is a class of nuclear fission activators where the primary coolant, or also the energy itself, is a liquified salt mix. MSRs perform at higher temperature levels than water-cooled reactors for greater thermodynamic savings, while staying at low vapor tension.

In many designs the nuclear energy is dissolved in the molten fluoride salt coolant as uranium tetrafluoride (UF4). Solid energy designs rely on ceramic energy dispersed in a graphite matrix, regarding the molten salt providing low stress, high temperature level air conditioning.

The early Aircraft Reactor Experiment (1954) was primarily motivated by the tiny dimension that the style might offer, while the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-- 1969) was a prototype for a thorium gas cycle breeder activator nuclear power plant. Among the Generation IV reactor designs is a molten-salt-cooled, molten-salt-fuelled reactor; the initial reference design is 1000 MWe.

______________________________________________________________________

A great documentary, Lets hope they succeed 

They raised $410K on kick starter to make the documentry

Sure, nuclear is the greenest technology... if you ignore the hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste overflowing with no place to go, and the fallout blanketing the earth from failed reactors.

Ask russia/ukraine and japan how well it worked out for them. "Green" is only until something happens, then it becomes blacker than everything else...for centuries. NO to nuclear energy, lets focus on solar harvesting.

I agree Solar and Wind should be an alternative energy instead of chemicals.. The Fukushima incident is a sign that we should not support such energies

Do you know how many tons of toxic chemicals are produced as byproduct, during the manufacturing of a single solar panel? Solar energy produces huge amount of toxic waste. And moreover, it is extremely expensive when compared to the other forms of energy. And with today's technology, there are innovative ways to take care of the nuclear waste, which makes it more preferable to the other forms of energy.

It's a difficult issue, but can you compare the toxicity of those chemicals to radiation? I'm no expert , but a small leak of the wrong radioactive stuff could have devastating effects, let alone a melt down.

If we store the radioactive waste properly, then there will be no issues. The problems arise only when it is not contained properly. The Americans and the Europeans are doing it properly, by storing them in gigantic lead containers in isolated and remote areas. Also, the net volume of the radio active waste generated from the nuclear plants is much smaller when compared to the toxic waste generated during the manufacturing of solar panels. 

New Nuclear Power Seen as Big Winner in Obama’s Energy Plan





The Obama administration is giving the struggling U.S. nuclear industry a glimmer of hope with changes to its carbon emission rules that mean new reactors will count more toward meeting federal benchmarks.

States will be able to take more credit for future carbon-free electricity to be generated by nuclear power plants still under construction when meeting their emission reduction targets, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a call on Sunday. The targets are required under the EPA’s landmark Clean Power Plan that was unveiled on Monday.

Under last year’s draft of the rules, the yet-to-be completed reactors were counted as existing units that wouldn’t be fully credited for carbon reductions generated in the future after they started operating. The nuclear power industry complained that amounted to a penalty on the plants and made state targets harder to achieve.

“We tend to view new rules as potentially the first bit of good news for the struggling nuclear industry,” Julien Dumoulin-Smith, an analyst for UBS, wrote on Monday in a research note.

Nuclear operators are being challenged by high maintenance and clean up costs as well as competition from cheap natural-gas fueled power plants and low-cost wind and solar generation. About 10 percent of the nation’s nuclear output could be retired early due to low energy prices, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The question of waste disposal also hangs over the industry as efforts to establish a federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have stalled.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group, said it was “pleased” that the EPA recognized that nuclear plants under construction “should count toward compliance when they are operating,” according to an e-mail statement from Marvin Fertel, president of the group.

Fertel said the industry was disappointed that existing reactors won’t get credit for their carbon-reduction value given that some plants are at risk for early retirement, according to the statement.

Delayed Projects

New reactor projects - the first in decades - have been plagued by delays and cost increases.

Beneficiaries of the rule changes would include Southern Co. and Scana Corp., which are building new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, respectively. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which is building a reactor at its Watts Bar facility near Spring City, Tennessee, would also get a boost.

“We had indicated that any nuclear facility that was under construction would be considered as part of the standard-setting process,” U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a call with reporters Sunday. The agency reconsidered after reviewing comments, and now will be counting new nuclear under construction as “a compliance strategy,” she said.

“If nuclear plants already under construction can be counted toward a state’s carbon reduction goals, then those states may not have to do something else to reduce carbon,” said Paul Patterson, a New York-based utility analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC.

Utility Concerns

The rule changes address one of TVA’s “major concerns,” Scott Brooks, a spokesman for Tennessee Valley Authority, said in a statement Monday.

“That means we can count Watts Bar Unit 2, scheduled to be online within the next year, as part of our compliance plan.”

Southern is reviewing the final rules and remained concerned that they “impede state’s authority to act in the best interests of customers,” Tim Leljedal, a spokesman for Southern, said in an e-mail statement Monday.

Southern said in January that delays may add more than $700 million in costs to the twin reactors its building at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Georgia. The company has said customers won’t have to pay for those setbacks.

“Nuclear facilities will be credited because it’s new, zero-carbon generation that will be credited as part of a compliance strategy,” McCarthy said. “We think that’s entirely consistent and appropriate.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/new-nuclear-power-seen-as-big-winner-in-obama-s-power-plan

Black Swan risk calculations, or STFU and GTFO. >:(

The safety argument reeks of erroneously ignoring the possibility of rare events similar to Chernobyl or Fukushima. Maybe it's expedience, maybe they were taught at school to ignore outliers when drawing smoothed graphs.

Or maybe "this time it's different"... because next-generation plants will not be susceptible to unforeseen disasters. ;)


If people want efficient solar: grow and harvest high-energy crops and forests for fuel.
-land usage is far more efficient than any system of mirrors or panels.
-plants produce a natural 3d matrix that has far superior light absorption qualities than panels. (Reflected light is scattered downwards).
-It's carbon-neutral, and plays much better with local fauna compared to solar panel factories or arrays of mirrors, or wind turbines.

But time consumption regarding growing and processing to eletricity is big.
Also think about social  and economical consequences of burning food...

Although we soon might have special gmos for just that.
But well the oil and other energy lobbys will probaly stop that.

Then use industrial hemp or other annual crops.
Battery storage costs for forestry and logging aren't high, the fuel just sits there. In fact it gets better as it dries out.
Fuel and food crops competing for space could be an issue, but there are areas that are only suitable for one but not the other. Forests also have high social value as parks and recreational areas (as long as the logging is confined to a small portion at any given time.)

In some cases, burning fuel locally is more efficient because what people need is more heat, not electricity. This brings up the issue of fossil fuels and transport costs. At any given moment, the competing prices are seeking an equilibrium. If natural gas is cheaper than wood, people will use more gas and less wood. The price system is a good indicator of how efficient something is. So you should not try to be green if it doesn't pay off financially.

The only reservation I have about prices is that they could be skewed by subsidies, but then it's a question of how much do you trust your government to have superior social and planning/risk data than your local data?

Another issue with local versus centralised energy production is the scaling and efficiency of furnaces. Household chimneys are notorious creating smog, especially if emissions regulation and enforcement is inadequate.

Agree with you, if nuclear energy is done properly, then it is the most efficient source of energy, and the best choice for the environment. Unfortunately it has a bad reputation because when there is an accident, it's pretty dramatic.

Here's an analogy for trying to get through to the "greenpeace zombies":

Imagine the difference between airliners and cars, specifically when they have accidents. Airliners rarely crash, but when they do it's pretty gnarly, and it's in the news. Cars crash all the time, and kill loads more people, but many people perceive cars as safer.

Imagine that nuclear energy is airliners, and fossil fuel combustion is cars. Except that nuclear energy is a lot safer than airliners, and getting safer all the time.

Well OK, maybe not the best analogy in the world, but you gotta keep it simple for these guys yo.

PS. Have you got any brazil nuts? Point your Geiger counter at one and take a photo. For science.  :)

Nuke generators don't have to be so insanely stupidly big...  100's of little ones might be the safest method actually.

There was nothing wrong with your analogy

 ;)

Well, if scientists and engineers could develop methods with which to burn the the vast majority of the nuclear waste in reactors, so that it does not get concentrated in the first place, that would be progress.

Ultimately it's the horrific dirtiness of the contents that are allowed to accumulate in reactors that is one of the real problems. In terms of a visual spectacle, even Chernobyl was probably less dramatic than the average cool store fire. But a cool store is just a refrigerated building with thick styrofoam walls. It doesn't have actinides and pressurised gases that could shorten the lives of millions of people with "random"/"unpredictable" cancers that are easily blamed on cigarettes.

To my knowlage, the USA has had 3 nuclear reactor accidents that could count as "serious".

 Most folks know about Three Mile Island - which released less radiation than a year's worth of background count, but COULD have been worse. The "could have been" is the ONLY reason I count it as serious.

 Detroit Edison had a really close near-miss back in the EARLY days of nuclear power, due to bad work on the construction of the plant involved and some other "newbie" type errors made, but IIRC didn't have any release at all. "We Almost Lost Detroit" is a bit sensationalistic but covers that event. Again, serious due to the COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.

 There was a Navy training reactor had a major operator error that actually managed to kill someone. IIRC Idaho Falls facility back in the 1960s. I don't remember if that one managed to release any radiation to the outside world, but it wasn't a lot if it did. Someone dying in a nuclear reactor accident definitely counts as serious.


 I suspect there were other nuclear-related non-bomb-caused deaths, but not due to "reactor accidents" but more due to the effects of radiation not being well understood early on and some folks got overdosed without realise what they were doing. Reference the death of Madam Curie for the definitive example.



 Any open air nuclear bomb TEST released a lot more radiation into the environment than the sum total of ALL reactor accidents to date except PERHAPS Chernobyl.

 Chernoybl was a major disaster because of the design of the reactor - a design the US Nuclear Power industry NEVER used. I think Hanford might have used that design on 1 or 2 of their first "production" reactors in the 1940s for making plutonium bomb material, and the test reactor at the University of Chicago was an even more primitive version of the same. I've never understood why the Soviets used that design for a power reactor, and consider them very lucky to have only had ONE accident with them.




 There is ZERO probabilty of being able to "burn" nuclear waste in a reactor. The waste would poison the reactor to the point it would just stop working long before you could "burn" it, and most reaction products of that waste are JUST as radioactive anyway.




 BTW folks - if you want a SERIOUS radiation issue, go visit Mercury or anywhere near the Sun.

I hazard a guess that no one here has read this amazing site The Keshe Foundation (http://www.keshefoundation.org/)

What about the molten salt ones with fast neutrons, or cyclonic filtration? Isn't there at least some provision for real-time self-cleaning? That would still be a lot better than a batch-based process, where nothing is done about dangerous waste until it's time for a periodic fuel-swap manoeuvre.



I'm curious about life there on the shadow side, or even close to the sunset/sunrise rim.

Can you tell us what their solution is about? Their videos are either short but vague, or very long.

Too long to really explain, in a nutshell it is free energy forever (for everyone)
This guy invented the tech (Remember the US downed drones by Iran) down with no damage.
I believe it was his knowledge that done this, possibly under duress by his government.

He has also sent all world governments and the U.N. the blueprints to make this free energy available, this happened a while ago mind you, I have not really kept up with this website in a couple of years, but as we can see in the present day no government has released it.

Oh yes you can dowload it for yourself from the site, its a pain looking for it though.
Most of it is in PDF format... check the forums the link is some where there, anyone with scientific knowledge would be at ease with it I suppose.

This guy has has had a hard time getting noticed, by the mainstream media, and we know why, suppression.

They wanted to stop all wars, hunger and energy problems in 2014 as with the release of the misterious technology.

Seems like a huge scam.

keshefoundation


https://youtu.be/b4yN-xqZN6w (https://youtu.be/b4yN-xqZN6w)


The Magrav-Power Blueprint is NOW AVAILABLE!
Here is the link to download:
http://blueprint.keshefoundation.org/blueprint.html (http://blueprint.keshefoundation.org/blueprint.html)

Thorium - World's Powerful Stuff They Don't Want You to Know (Documentary & Discovery HD Channel)

Does not operate at high pressure and is self regulating and shuts itself down Its so energy dense its more efficient that Coal by factors of 1000 000 and uranium by factors of 100


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BcHx_9DMcc&list=LL2SUmeAzu4qXRc5uQe4eZCw&index=1

This is actually what Greenpeace lovers never understands.
Nuclear might be dangerous I understand but it does not spread pollution for sure.

That nuclear power is 'greener' than fossil fuels is not in doubt, nor is the idea that nuclear could sustain rising energy demand

thats mostly because of the stigma that is associated with the word "nuclear;" the first thing that comes to mind after hearing that word is likely "bomb." add in that the general population is not only uneducated, but ignorant, and its clear innovative ideas such as nuclear power wont get the backing they should have anytime soon. quite unfortunate considering our main sources of energy (oil, coal) are due to run out in a few decades. however, as for the second part of your statement, nuclear energy, as great as it can be, is not foolproof yet. accidents can happen, and the problem of managing nuclear waste from power plants is still a question that needs to be solved without extensive contamination from waste products.

How fucking dumb are you!? Fukishima reaction is still GOING, poluted and poisining marine life... We dont control it, never have, we just use it like the foolish monkeys we are, also research the leaking radioactivity ALL OVER the globe, it isnt safe, it shall never be safe, wind and sun is all we need, please research...

the problem with wind and solar energy is, farms take up a lot of space, and natural energy alone wont be enough to sustain human society's energy needs. accidents such as fukushima and chernobyl are bound to happen, but that's because the technology isnt perfected yet; give nuclear energy research the funding and support it needs, and we might be oil-free within two decades with natural energy sources as a  supplement.

If the waste is properly stored, then nuclear energy is the cheapest and the greenest form of energy available to the humans. Let's compare the other options:

1. Hydropower: Cheap. But destroys the local ecology, and causes large-scale deforestation and climate change.
2. Coal: Cheap. But causes huge amounts of atmospheric pollution and acid rain.
3. Solar: Expensive and produces huge amounts of toxic waste products (during the construction of the panels).
4. Wind: Expensive, but green.
5. Gas / Oil: Expensive and causes pollution / global warming.

Along with uranium, thorium deposits are practically end less source of energy. But unfortunately, this industry won't get approval from coal & oil oligarchs. They would prefer to continue poisoning us with mercury and other heavy metals. And their lapdogs, such as Greenpeace sluts, will continue to serve their interests.

at least not until its absolutely, beyond any lunatic's doubt, that coal and oil are running out (likely within years when this decision will come to pass) and wont be able to sustain human society for more than a few more years. wont even matter much then, as when the fossil fuel resources start running dry, most of the big players in coal and oil will be dying of old age (~25 - 30 years into the future).

by the time nuclear power research gets the backing it needs, we'll be on the brink of collapse due to energy needs.

These Greenpeace fucks are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They say that they are pro-environment, and at the same time they are diametrically opposed to the greenest form of energy and want to kill millions of people every year by putting up new thermal, oil and gas power plants. They mst be getting good funding from the OPEC.

This is the reason:

"By using a minimalist design that used regular (light) water for cooling and graphite for moderation, it was possible to use natural uranium for fuel (instead of the considerably more expensive enriched uranium). This allowed for an extraordinarily large and powerful reactor that was also cheap enough to be built in large numbers and simple enough to be maintained and operated by local personnel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK)

By the way, all RBMK reactors went through modernization after 1986 disaster happened. This resolved all known safety issues, so now these reactors are considered safe. On the other hand, export of this technology is forbidden due to international regulations because RBMK series can be modified to generate weapons grade plutonium. That's why there are no working RBMK reactors outside of exUSSR.

This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.

I agree that nuclear plants are not 100.0000% safe. Once in a decade or two, an accident can occur (such as Fukushima) and there is a chance of human casualties occurring as a result of it. But what about the other forms of energy? Every year hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of the atmospheric pollution caused by the coal-fired thermal power plants. And for comparison, how many people have lost their lives in nuclear accidents during the past 20 years?

people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

oil and all that, makes sense.

that aside, this is happening: http://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-reactor-set-to-go-online-later-this-month/
after 19 years of construction, the W7-X fusion reactor is set to be powered on later this month.
although this reactor wont be meant to be a reliable and sustainable source of energy, it will be testing a new design that will surpass the current limitations of nuclear fusion reactors. if this test proves successful in proving the theories behind the device, we should be looking at drastic changes in nuclear reactor design over the next 3 - 4 decades to make a model that will provide clean, consistent energy.

This propaganda won't work in China. They are steaming ahead with nuclear power plants.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/china-poised-speed-nuclear-power-investment

The development of nuclear power in China is set to gain momentum in the next five years as the country prepares to inject hundreds of billions of yuan into building nuclear plants.

More than 100 nuclear power plants will be put into operation by 2020, with a nationwide capacity tripling that of 2014 to reach 58 million kilowatts, the China Times reported, citing a draft for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20).

Of course it won't work when people are suffocating from gases and unable to see the sunlight.

http://inhabitat.com/new-fake-sun-photo-shows-how-bad-beijings-pollution-problem-is/

A reminder (not directly linked to nuclear energy but...)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2012/09/28/new-matt-damon-movie-funded-by-opec-member-country-trashes-american-oil-companies/

Useful idiot.

One of the advantages in having a military dictatorship running the country. At least the Chinese should shut down their ultra-polluting coal fired power plants, and replace them with the nuclear energy plants. The only negative is that the Chinese doesn't have significant amount of Uranium reserves (unlike the case with coal).

It is possible that we will see fusion reactors a lot faster.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810

Lockheed&martin are also saying something similiar.