Comments PeteJacobsen has made

Weapons are evil, but are all reactors that bad?

I am in complete agreement that those who resist the dismantling of nuclear weapons are truly evil, and that the United States is by far the worst offender.  I am concerned that Ms. Caldicott's strong condemnation of weapons will get buried under objections to her rejection of nuclear power.

In last October's American Scientist, Eric Loewen wrote an article about a new (well, under used) style of reactor based on liquid lead as a coolant.  He claims it addresses almost all the criticisms of existing nuclear plants, to wit: The coolant is not under pressure, and so is safer to operate; it operates at a higher temperature and thus produces waste that is dangerouse for much shorter times (300 years vs 10,000 years); its wastes are isotopes that are not usable for nuclear weapons; It can use as fuel existing nuclear plant wastes, converting the waste from long term dangerous to short term dangerous; and finally that it can produce large amounts of hydrogen.

Now 300 years is still a long time, but obviously this design, if accurately portrayed, is a much better choice than existing water-cooled nuclear plants.  Can Ms. Caldicott's group offer specific criticism of this plan?  I certainly don't want any more nuclear plants of the type we have now, but I don't know how to counter an argument that plant designs are better now and we should give it another shot (as opposed to burning coal.)

Pete JacobsenOn An interview with longtime anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott posted 4 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses