NUCLEAR IS GREENEST TECHNOLOGY CLAIM 65 TOP BIOLOGISTS

[Wilikon]

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...

[Snail2]

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.

[Tzupy]

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.

[Balthazar]

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.

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.

[criptix]

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...

[Balthazar]

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

Knock-Knock! It's ignorance knocking.

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.

[criptix]

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

Knock-Knock! It's ignorance knocking.

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.

 

[Balthazar]

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





(c) myself

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

[criptix]

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

 

[RodeoX]

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.

[Decentradical]

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.

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.

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.

[Lethn]

yeah, it's green alright.



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.

[Wilikon]

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





(c) myself

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

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


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


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

[criptix]

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)

 

[Snail2]

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

Knock-Knock! It's ignorance knocking.

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.

 

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/

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.

[criptix]

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/

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/

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.

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

[Snail2]

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.

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.

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 .

[Snail2]

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/

...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

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

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 ?

[criptix]

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/

...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

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.

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

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 ?

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

[sgk]

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.

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?