advancednano’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The dates provided were for first nuclear bomb versus first commercial nuclear reactor. Highly enriched uranium does not require a reactor, you can get it with centrifuges. Which is what Pakistan did and what Iran is doing. You can make a specialized reactor for making plutonium but that it would very inefficient to try to get plutonium via commercial nuclear reactors. Also, note in terms of actual deaths. since 1945, 200 million deaths from conventional weapons and warfare versus less than 200,000 from the nuclear bombs. Plus during world war 2, the fire bombing of tokyo for three days killed about 100,000 people. comparable to one of the nuclear bombs. During vietnam if operation rolling thunder had been used to fire bomb cities then you could have the equivalent of 100 tokyo firebombings. With air superiority, conventional weapons can be just as lethal as nuclear bombs. Plus one could implement the Stalin scorched earth policy on enemy territory. Poisoning water and food and crops, destroying medical facilities, bridges etc... Near total exterminate of a country of region could be achieved in weeks. === Outdoor air pollution has killed 3 million people per year. total those daaths up and it is also about 150 million deaths since 1950s when commercial nuclear power became available. World Health Organization stats. Early heart attacks and cancer, asthma attacks and other illness that remove 1-2 decades off of a persons life and kill babies too. Understand the actual risks and existing damage and deaths. It is not like having a crappy plan that does not replace coal and oil as fast as possible does not have a high cost.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 week, 5 days ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Proliferation is more a matter of key knowledge. The key knowledge was proliferated by Pakistan's AQ Khan back in the seventies through the nineties. Knowledge of bombs and centrifuges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#Nuclear_Proliferation_and_Rise_to_Fame The belief that there is nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons is wrong. Countries get nuclear weapons firstly and directly. USA bombs first. (Hiroshima, Nagasaki - pre nuclear power). 1957 first reactor USSR bombs first. 1949 first bomb. first nuclear reactor June 27, 1954 United Kingdom first nuclear weapon 1952, first reactor 1956 France tested its first nuclear weapon in 1960, first reactor 1963 China first nuclear weapon in 1964, reactor 1991 India 1974, first reactor 1969 (exception to the bomb first) Pakistan 1998, karachi 1972 (exception to the bomb first) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ Achieved with secret enrichment, centrifuges North Korea 2005 bomb, no commercial reactor Israel late 1960s, bombs no commercial reactor ====== Waste for coal, billions of tons of particulates, smog, CO2 spewed and tens of thousands of tons of uranium and thorium mixed in with the particulates. Mercury, arsenic and toxic metals. Nuclear power displaced would have been more coal and gas power ===== Nuclear waste - unburned fuel a basketball court of material per year. Each nuclear power plant is on one or more square miles of space. ===== 10% is reprocessed in France, Russia, Japan, UK === there are deep burn reactors in development to handle the waste.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  From page 10 of Amory - four Myths

  Photovoltaics’ business case, unlike nuclear’s, needn’t depend on government subsidies or support. Global installed PV capacity reached 15.2 GW in 2008, adding 5.95 GW (110% annual growth) of sales and 6.85 GW of manufacturing (the rest was in the pipeline). That’s more added capacity than the world nuclear industry has added in any year since 1996, and more added annual output than the world nuclear industry has added in any year since 2004. About 90% of the world’s PV capacity is grid-tied. Its operators think it works just fine

  From Greentech media which quotes the solarbuzz report which generated those stats. the added solar is mostly going to Spain and Germany which are using massive feed in tariffs. About 42 cents per kwh. Spain numbers could be fraudulent. The 15.2 GW is about 16 TWh. In 1996, nuclear power plants generated 2 312 TWh, which accounted for 17 per cent of the electricity produced world-wide. from page 10. http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/climate/climate.pdf In 2006, nuclear power generation was 2650 TWh and was 2600 TWh in 2008 (Japan had some reactors off in 2007, 2008 which have since been turned back on and their were some German reactors shutoff.) 300 TWh added from 1996 to 2006, is an average addition of 30 TWh per year. Double all global solar power up to 2008. Solar report review http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/report-global-solar-industry-raked-in-371b-in-2008-5899/ Spain solar fraud http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-fraud-could-eliminate-spanish-market-5380/ Europe remains the world's largest market, accounting for 82 percent of the demand, Solarbuzz said. The United States is the third largest market (360 megawatts) in 2008, following Spain (2.46 gigawatts) and Germany (1.86 gigawatts). South Korea ranked No. 4 (280 megawatts), making it the largest market in Asia. The ranking of the top four markets echoed the findings by Displaybank, whose report said Spain installed 2.28 gigawatts, Germany 1.53 gigawatts, the United States 333 megawatts and South Korea 274 megawatts in 2008 (see Report: Korea's Solar Industry on the Rise). Displaybank said Japan ranked No. 5, followed by Italy. Solarbuzz said Italy was a larger market than Japan in 2008. GTM Research also saw Spain making the most gains in solar-panel installations in 2008. The country's feed-in tariff program, in which the government sets high rates for solar electricity and requires utilities to buy all the solar power available on the market, boosted Spain's installations by 258 percent to reach 1.7 gigawatts last year. Germany installed nearly 1.54 gigawatts while the United States installed 313 megawatts last year, according to GTM Research. Japan came in fourth at 235 megawatts, followed by Italy at 175 megawatts and South Korea at 95 megawatts. The amount of solar power installed in Spain has been hotly disputed, given the problems the country faced in carrying out its feed-in program. A rush to take advantage of the feed-in tariffs last year spurred allegations of fraud. A government investigation has been launched to see if some developers claimed to have installed the systems and connected them to the grid by a deadline when they didn't How many billion kilowatt hours is the total solar power ? In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. 15.2 GW generates about 16 TWh (terawatt hours) So solar is getting feed in tariffs for most of its growth in Europe and Canada. And in the US it is getting state and federal tax credits and rebates. In China, it is mostly the non-private money building it.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  19% of world electricity is being supplied by nuclear power now using about 66000 tons of Uranium. the current reactors only burn about 5% of that uranium. Deeper burn reactors are being developed. Thus all of the actinides will be burned. Uranium can be economically obtained from coal ash as is being proved now. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-coal-ash-and-seawater.html Japan is developing large scale extraction of uranium from seawater. there is 3.5 billion tons of uranium in seawater and more gets put into seawater from river runoff. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-seawater-on-large-scale.html duration of power from nuclear fission http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/revisiting-duration-of-nuclear-power.html The total abundance of Uranium in the Earth's crust is estimated to be approximately 40 trillion tonnes. The Rossing mine in Nambia mines Uranium at an Ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors. If the energy cost increases in inverse proportion to the Ore concentration, shales and phosphates, with a Uranium abundance of 10 - 20 ppm, could be mined with an energy gain of 16 - 32. If deep burn reactors are developed and used where all of the nuclear fuel is used then 20 times more power would be generated from the same amount of metal. If all of the 2 ppm fuel was able to be mined for higher energy return then the energy cost of mining then about 20 trillion tons is accessible. And then about quadruple that by including thorium. The earth's crust has 6 ppm of Thorium and 2 ppm of Uranium. Some deep burn reactor approaches such as fusion/fission hybrids do not require any enrichment. Any uranium is usable not just uranium 235. 80 trillion tons times 950 gigawatt days/ton times 24 billion watt/hours per GWd. 1750 billion trillion kilowatthours. World net electricity generation nearly doubles in the IEO2008 reference case, from about 17.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2005 to 24.4 trillion kilowatts in 2015 and 33.3 trillion kilowatthours in 2030. 100 times current world electricity usage for 1 billion years. Advanced nuclear (deep burn 99.9% usage of fuel) can last for billions of years at 100 times the energy usage rate we have now.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  US Energy subsidies, Management Information Service analysis of US energy funding of all kinds from 1950-2006 http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/09/us-energy-subsidies-updated.html Feed in Tariff support of renewables around the world http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/feed-in-tariffs-support-for-renewable.html Energy costs with externalities http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/energy-costs-with-externalities.html Coal is way more deadly and dangerous nuclear energy http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/coal-is-more-deadly-and-dangerous-than.html Coal power and coal waste details http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/coal-power-and-waste-details.html Newly Identified Persistent Free Radicals (from burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas) Scientists have long known that free radicals exist in the atmosphere. These atoms, molecules, and fragments of molecules are highly reactive and damage cells in the body. Free radicals form during the burning of fuels or in photochemical processes like those that form ozone. Most of these previously identified atmospheric free radicals form as gases, exist for less than one second, and disappear. In contrast, the newly detected molecules — which Dellinger terms persistent free radicals (PFRs) — form on airborne nanoparticles and other fine particle residues as gases cool in smokestacks, automotive exhaust pipes and household chimneys. Particles that contain metals, such as copper and iron, are the most likely to persist, he said. Unlike other atmospheric free radicals, PFRs can linger in the air and travel great distances. Once PFRs are inhaled, Dellinger suspects they are absorbed into the lungs and other tissues where they contribute to DNA and other cellular damage. Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution, he says. About 10 to 15 percent of lung cancers are diagnosed in nonsmokers, according to the American Cancer Society. However, Dellinger stresses additional research is necessary before scientists can definitely link airborne PFRs to these diseases. Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately 2 million premature deaths worldwide per year. The mortality in cities with high levels of pollution exceeds that observed in relatively cleaner cities by 15–20%. Even in the EU, average life expectancy is 8.6 months lower due to exposure to PM2.5 produced by human activities. Deaths per TWH for different energy sources http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html Rooftop solar can be safer [0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year). If the rooftop solar is part of the shingle so you do not put the roof up more than once and do not increase maintenance then that is ok too. Or if you had a robotic system of installation. World average for coal is about 161 deaths per TWh. In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh. 15 deaths per TWh. In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh. 278 deaths per TWh. Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation. Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996 Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh. http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/another-amory-lovins-big-lie-nuclear.html The lie is not that nuclear power costs large amounts of money. The big lies ignore these truths: 1. Other forms of power also cost a lot money 2. Government money massively subsidizes and supports all forms of energy - public money is needed to prop up all of the private energy companies and industries 3. Other forms of energy are risky to develop as well Most thin film solar companies fail. Out of hundreds of companies only one or two companies have brought products to market in any scale. The reality, according to Neal Dikeman, partner with VC firm Jane Capital Partners, is that only one or two thin-film projects have brought product to market in 30 years, and it's a US $100M-$200M dollar up-front investment "just to play the game and see if your product really works." Silicon Valley investors have mistakenly bet on "really great teams" while the technology is still at a science experiment stage, he argues — investors are beginning to realize this, he thinks, and that the industry is sitting on the back end of about 5-10 years of US $100M bets. "We're going to see a bunch of write-offs coming up," he warns. The challenge that has caught startups in this sector time and time again, Dikeman explained, is underestimating the engineering scale-up and production on a tens-of-megawatts (MW) scale. "People always assumed that if the technology worked and the team was good, that the rest was just engineering...and so far, that has never proven to be the case," he observed, noting that there have been several hundred (thin film) companies that have tried and only two succeeded. "The challenge has been that the engineering scale-up has been much harder than the science experiment." Citing the "black art" aspect to thin-film projects, he observed that for factories in the 30-40 MW range, what matters is getting the same yields, distributions and performance out of the second plant as was achieved in the first. New energy costs money to develop. Tens of billions spent on wind and solar over decades to get them to this point and they are still not certain in scaling up. Any hope of scaling up is only with massive government support. Governments are involved all over energy. It is not "all just private companies". Jerome Paris is and investor and developer of wind energy projects. In an Oil Drum article he is asking Obama for constant high levels of government subsidies. He notes that three times the wind energy industry was wiped out because of periods of insufficient of subsidies. Solar and wind are likely to be getting $20 billion from a clean energy bill, probably going along with tens of billions more in whatever 800-1500 billion stimulus packages get passed. The long-term extension of the renewable energy production tax credits, which would cost the government $13.1 billion over 10 years. Plus 30% tax credits for instant subsidy. Worldwide it is about $2 trillion per year for energy spending. Hundreds of billions on subsidies and research and development. Energy costs BIG money. Why does anyone think otherwise ? All the investments are big and multi-year and often decades long. Just because you can chunk up some aspects of it into small pieces is meaningless. Yes, one set of solar panels does not take long to make but you need millions of houses with solar panels on roofs to equal one nuclear plant. It takes time to make the factories to make the panels. Doing the research and development takes time. As noted only a small percentage of the thin film solar power companies make it. The solar companies are often betting on competing specific technologies. It takes time to scale up the supply chains. Wind power takes 5,000 large wind turbines to equal one nuclear power plant. Again it takes timed to scale up the wind factory and the component supply chain and it takes ten times as much concrete and more steel for enough wind turbines to generate comparable amounts of power. The solar and wind factories and supply chain cost a lot of money and take years to scale up. $100-200 million for each solar thin film company to make a serious play and they take a decade or so to get their R&D and then make scaled factories and try to deploy. Plus each one is competing with a hundred other variants. So which is the riskier long term investment ? The US energy grid is going to take well over a trillion to upgrade over the next decade or two. Same for Europe's energy grid. Renewable like solar and wind need a better energy grid to have deeper penetration. What is this "all private" BS ? By that standard you would be telling wind power developers like Jerome Paris - make it "all private" which he as a developer of wind, lack of wind subsidies wipes out the wind industry. Coal gets and natural gas and oil get their credits too and the biggest gift to coal is not having them pay for their waste or handle it. (the CO2, smog, particulates which would more than double the cost of coal power, it would also add 30% to natural gas)On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago 159 Responses