<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Public not sold on nuclear power]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by DianaJardine http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/ Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:14:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/1 Hear hear

I think it is important to not simply write off people who argue for more nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change, however, when the argument is engaged, I agree that nuclear is not the answer.

It's true that the Bushies will probably do all they can to change the public opinion on this matter. While it may be seen as futile, I think we should all send messages to the Administration that we don't support nuclear, and that we want renewable energy instead (link provided by Greenpeace).

Diana

]]> Hear hear

I think it is important to not simply write off people who argue for more nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change, however, when the argument is engaged, I agree that nuclear is not the answer.

It's true that the Bushies will probably do all they can to change the public opinion on this matter. While it may be seen as futile, I think we should all send messages to the Administration that we don't support nuclear, and that we want renewable energy instead (link provided by Greenpeace).

Diana

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/ Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:22:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/2 Yep Diana

I agree on that, no more nukes!  Thayt would be best.

But should we let them try building a couple of waste processing nukes just so they finally prove a failure on cost and safety?  We could bargain for elimination of subsidies for fossil and nukes in return.

And redirecting some of the savings from eliminating corporate welfare for big coal, nuclear, and oil to homeowners and small businesses to install wind and solar and buy electric plugin cars, either hybrid plugin or pure electric.

There could be a requirement of real safety oversight, instead of industry "self" (no) regulation as in the past.  And locate them at an already contaminated sire that needs cleanup, like Hanford or Rocky Flars, or Yucca Mountain if it's at all safe, not sure on that?

The question is, should we compromise as a negotiating tactic, realizing the corrupt nuclear industry will surely fail?   Even if they do it safely it will be many times the cost of renewable power like wind power at 2 cents per kwh, with no fuel costs ever.   And then we can finally get rid of it for good.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Yep Diana

I agree on that, no more nukes!  Thayt would be best.

But should we let them try building a couple of waste processing nukes just so they finally prove a failure on cost and safety?  We could bargain for elimination of subsidies for fossil and nukes in return.

And redirecting some of the savings from eliminating corporate welfare for big coal, nuclear, and oil to homeowners and small businesses to install wind and solar and buy electric plugin cars, either hybrid plugin or pure electric.

There could be a requirement of real safety oversight, instead of industry "self" (no) regulation as in the past.  And locate them at an already contaminated sire that needs cleanup, like Hanford or Rocky Flars, or Yucca Mountain if it's at all safe, not sure on that?

The question is, should we compromise as a negotiating tactic, realizing the corrupt nuclear industry will surely fail?   Even if they do it safely it will be many times the cost of renewable power like wind power at 2 cents per kwh, with no fuel costs ever.   And then we can finally get rid of it for good.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by LegumeSam http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/ Thu, 01 Jun 2006 03:38:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/3 I have read...

(sorry I'm not placing it) that there isn't really a whole lot of uranium in the world for electrical power needs (given the enormous rate at which electricity is consumed), unless our uranium-238 is converted to plutonium-239 for "breeder reactors."  Of course, plutonium is quite toxic, and can be used to make nuclear weapons.  Does anyone have a source on this?

Youngquist's piece (which doesn't say a lot)

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

]]> I have read...

(sorry I'm not placing it) that there isn't really a whole lot of uranium in the world for electrical power needs (given the enormous rate at which electricity is consumed), unless our uranium-238 is converted to plutonium-239 for "breeder reactors."  Of course, plutonium is quite toxic, and can be used to make nuclear weapons.  Does anyone have a source on this?

Youngquist's piece (which doesn't say a lot)

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

]]> Comment #4 by GRLCowan http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/ Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:09:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/public-not-sold-on-nuclear-power/4 Low-grade U ores are very high-grade energy ores

More.

Uranium ores' very high net-energy fraction is the reason why abundant fission energy will be available for many centuries or millennia, even if most of those periods are breeder-reactor-free and reprocessing-plant-free. University of Melbourne physicists show at the above-linked site that even for ores as low as 0.001 weight percent U, ten parts per million, most of the energy is net. This is only about four times richer than typical (or "country") rock.

One can confirm that this is reasonable by comparing the electrical energy required to crush hard rock with the electrical energy 0.00005 percent, half a ppm, of U whose extraction this would make possible would yield. They're equal.

Solar energy has problems, but it's fairly easy to show that a low net energy fraction isn't one of them.

Thus, while it is true that it takes energy to get energy, it is not true that there is any near term necessity for it to take very much energy to get energy; and in this context "near term" means any time less far in the future than the Great Pyramid's start date is in the past.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

]]> Low-grade U ores are very high-grade energy ores

More.

Uranium ores' very high net-energy fraction is the reason why abundant fission energy will be available for many centuries or millennia, even if most of those periods are breeder-reactor-free and reprocessing-plant-free. University of Melbourne physicists show at the above-linked site that even for ores as low as 0.001 weight percent U, ten parts per million, most of the energy is net. This is only about four times richer than typical (or "country") rock.

One can confirm that this is reasonable by comparing the electrical energy required to crush hard rock with the electrical energy 0.00005 percent, half a ppm, of U whose extraction this would make possible would yield. They're equal.

Solar energy has problems, but it's fairly easy to show that a low net energy fraction isn't one of them.

Thus, while it is true that it takes energy to get energy, it is not true that there is any near term necessity for it to take very much energy to get energy; and in this context "near term" means any time less far in the future than the Great Pyramid's start date is in the past.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

]]>