RussellLowes’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A small number of messages in this thread have contended that nuclear proliferation is not related to civil nuclear energy. One message went so far as to say that no reactors (not specified civil OR military) were built until after these countries had the bomb. A reactor is required to be built before bomb-grade material is produced. An American president has admitted this connection between the connection of civilian and military nuclear bomb-making potential: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-T3A4-ysJQ&videos=NCQHKgt_w2k I hope many visit this site to better understand the link between civil and military nuclear energy.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 195 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hey Charles, Happy International Day of Climate Action! You say that stormsmith.nl has been "discredited discredited." By whom? By Nuclear Engineering International? What a joke. NEI "discredits" anyone that says anything against nukes. Their "research" is sloppy at best, truly a hack PR job. There was a very fine study done of 103 nuke net energy/CO2 studies (http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf) by a man named Benjamin Sovacool. Stormsmith.nl got front and center placement in the analysis, which indicated that the average of the qualified studies showed that nukes generate 66 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. This is over 6 times that of wind, many times that of energy efficiency. Stormsmith show that as uranium goes from 3000 parts per million in ore grade of the 1980s to 1500 ppm today to 400 ppm by about 2040, the CO2 will go up much higher than the 66 grams/KWH. By the way, stormsmith.nl lists the web addresses of its attempted rebukes, and then assesses these attempted rebukes. Check it out.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 195 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  TomBlees: Are you suggesting that the U.S., which has a higher standard than average for reactor safety, although not high enough, reduce its standard to that of Third World nations and other countries specifically like Japan, which has not sufficiently designed their plants against earthquakes? The TEPCO facility had to shut down for a year, before a spotty restart, after an only medium level earthquake over a year ago. If they are going to build them, they need to take the time to build them right -- and that means a long long lead time. This discussion has gotten so tangential, but interesting. At the core of this is which energy palette works the best. Clearly wind at half the price of nuclear, mixed with energy efficiency at one eighth the price, mixed with solar at a slightly lower price now than nuclear (much cheaper if you count the externalized waste costs and accident and proliferation risks), we need to not go nuclear!On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 195 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The seawater argument for uranium extraction has been thoroughly discredited at least at www.stormsmith.nl It takes too much energy to power the extraction process to get a net yield of energy.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 195 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It was pointed out by STK that the MIT study said that nuclear could become economical, given more support and with carbon pricing. That study was done in 2003, and contained the ridiculous projection that reactors would cost only $1500 per kilowatt of installation. Amory, you said that estimates have tripled since then. However, we have seen estimates as high as $8,800 and $10,000 per kilowatt, much higher than a tripling. The MIT study was so skewed toward low nuclear energy costs, that of course it could come up with the conclusion that it could be made competitive. The MIT study also called nuclear energy carbon-free. No energy production technique I know of is carbon-free. Even energy efficiency CAN be carbon-free, but many times is not completely carbon-free. The nuclear fuel cycle is full of CO2 emissions. The Sovacool compilation of 103 studies estimated nuclear at 65 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, while wind was estimated at 10-11 grams and solar at 25-75 grams. Nuclear's emissions will skyrocket as ore quality continues to go down. Uranium was at 3000 parts per million in 1980 and today is at 1500 on average, with some projecting 400 by 2040. Much more CO2 will be produced by the mining and milling of uranium as time goes on. An interesting recommendation in the MIT study, however, was that since it is much more expensive to do a "closed loop" nuclear cycle, we should not reprocess and should instead only pursue the "once through" option. That means no breeders, French approach, etc. With the MIT estimate of plant costs already more than tripling, and with the study calling nukes carbon-free, it is easy to say that this study was extremely biased. So, with nuclear cost estimates having more than tripled, and they have not even broken the ground -- you ain't seen nothing yet! The average reactor overrun was well over 200% in the last round ending in the 1980s into the 90s. At the same time coal plant overran at an average of 50%. Nuclear energy is good at one thing -- dominating the energy scene. One of the most important messages you have pointed out over the years is that the nuke option would pull money away from the reasonable options like energy efficiency and renewables.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 195 Responses