Topic: NUCLEAR IS GREENEST TECHNOLOGY CLAIM 65 TOP BIOLOGISTS - page 2. (Read 4210 times)

This is actually what Greenpeace lovers never understands.
Nuclear might be dangerous I understand but it does not spread pollution for sure.

Thorium - World's Powerful Stuff They Don't Want You to Know (Documentary & Discovery HD Channel)

Does not operate at high pressure and is self regulating and shuts itself down Its so energy dense its more efficient that Coal by factors of 1000 000 and uranium by factors of 100


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BcHx_9DMcc&list=LL2SUmeAzu4qXRc5uQe4eZCw&index=1

keshefoundation


https://youtu.be/b4yN-xqZN6w


The Magrav-Power Blueprint is NOW AVAILABLE!
Here is the link to download:
http://blueprint.keshefoundation.org/blueprint.html

They wanted to stop all wars, hunger and energy problems in 2014 as with the release of the misterious technology.

Seems like a huge scam.

Too long to really explain, in a nutshell it is free energy forever (for everyone)
This guy invented the tech (Remember the US downed drones by Iran) down with no damage.
I believe it was his knowledge that done this, possibly under duress by his government.

He has also sent all world governments and the U.N. the blueprints to make this free energy available, this happened a while ago mind you, I have not really kept up with this website in a couple of years, but as we can see in the present day no government has released it.

Oh yes you can dowload it for yourself from the site, its a pain looking for it though.
Most of it is in PDF format... check the forums the link is some where there, anyone with scientific knowledge would be at ease with it I suppose.

This guy has has had a hard time getting noticed, by the mainstream media, and we know why, suppression.

Can you tell us what their solution is about? Their videos are either short but vague, or very long.

What about the molten salt ones with fast neutrons, or cyclonic filtration? Isn't there at least some provision for real-time self-cleaning? That would still be a lot better than a batch-based process, where nothing is done about dangerous waste until it's time for a periodic fuel-swap manoeuvre.



I'm curious about life there on the shadow side, or even close to the sunset/sunrise rim.

I hazard a guess that no one here has read this amazing site The Keshe Foundation

To my knowlage, the USA has had 3 nuclear reactor accidents that could count as "serious".

 Most folks know about Three Mile Island - which released less radiation than a year's worth of background count, but COULD have been worse. The "could have been" is the ONLY reason I count it as serious.

 Detroit Edison had a really close near-miss back in the EARLY days of nuclear power, due to bad work on the construction of the plant involved and some other "newbie" type errors made, but IIRC didn't have any release at all. "We Almost Lost Detroit" is a bit sensationalistic but covers that event. Again, serious due to the COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.

 There was a Navy training reactor had a major operator error that actually managed to kill someone. IIRC Idaho Falls facility back in the 1960s. I don't remember if that one managed to release any radiation to the outside world, but it wasn't a lot if it did. Someone dying in a nuclear reactor accident definitely counts as serious.


 I suspect there were other nuclear-related non-bomb-caused deaths, but not due to "reactor accidents" but more due to the effects of radiation not being well understood early on and some folks got overdosed without realise what they were doing. Reference the death of Madam Curie for the definitive example.



 Any open air nuclear bomb TEST released a lot more radiation into the environment than the sum total of ALL reactor accidents to date except PERHAPS Chernobyl.

 Chernoybl was a major disaster because of the design of the reactor - a design the US Nuclear Power industry NEVER used. I think Hanford might have used that design on 1 or 2 of their first "production" reactors in the 1940s for making plutonium bomb material, and the test reactor at the University of Chicago was an even more primitive version of the same. I've never understood why the Soviets used that design for a power reactor, and consider them very lucky to have only had ONE accident with them.




 There is ZERO probabilty of being able to "burn" nuclear waste in a reactor. The waste would poison the reactor to the point it would just stop working long before you could "burn" it, and most reaction products of that waste are JUST as radioactive anyway.




 BTW folks - if you want a SERIOUS radiation issue, go visit Mercury or anywhere near the Sun.

Well, if scientists and engineers could develop methods with which to burn the the vast majority of the nuclear waste in reactors, so that it does not get concentrated in the first place, that would be progress.

Ultimately it's the horrific dirtiness of the contents that are allowed to accumulate in reactors that is one of the real problems. In terms of a visual spectacle, even Chernobyl was probably less dramatic than the average cool store fire. But a cool store is just a refrigerated building with thick styrofoam walls. It doesn't have actinides and pressurised gases that could shorten the lives of millions of people with "random"/"unpredictable" cancers that are easily blamed on cigarettes.

There was nothing wrong with your analogy

 

Nuke generators don't have to be so insanely stupidly big...  100's of little ones might be the safest method actually.

Agree with you, if nuclear energy is done properly, then it is the most efficient source of energy, and the best choice for the environment. Unfortunately it has a bad reputation because when there is an accident, it's pretty dramatic.

Here's an analogy for trying to get through to the "greenpeace zombies":

Imagine the difference between airliners and cars, specifically when they have accidents. Airliners rarely crash, but when they do it's pretty gnarly, and it's in the news. Cars crash all the time, and kill loads more people, but many people perceive cars as safer.

Imagine that nuclear energy is airliners, and fossil fuel combustion is cars. Except that nuclear energy is a lot safer than airliners, and getting safer all the time.

Well OK, maybe not the best analogy in the world, but you gotta keep it simple for these guys yo.

PS. Have you got any brazil nuts? Point your Geiger counter at one and take a photo. For science. 

Then use industrial hemp or other annual crops.
Battery storage costs for forestry and logging aren't high, the fuel just sits there. In fact it gets better as it dries out.
Fuel and food crops competing for space could be an issue, but there are areas that are only suitable for one but not the other. Forests also have high social value as parks and recreational areas (as long as the logging is confined to a small portion at any given time.)

In some cases, burning fuel locally is more efficient because what people need is more heat, not electricity. This brings up the issue of fossil fuels and transport costs. At any given moment, the competing prices are seeking an equilibrium. If natural gas is cheaper than wood, people will use more gas and less wood. The price system is a good indicator of how efficient something is. So you should not try to be green if it doesn't pay off financially.

The only reservation I have about prices is that they could be skewed by subsidies, but then it's a question of how much do you trust your government to have superior social and planning/risk data than your local data?

Another issue with local versus centralised energy production is the scaling and efficiency of furnaces. Household chimneys are notorious creating smog, especially if emissions regulation and enforcement is inadequate.

But time consumption regarding growing and processing to eletricity is big.
Also think about social  and economical consequences of burning food...

Although we soon might have special gmos for just that.
But well the oil and other energy lobbys will probaly stop that.

Black Swan risk calculations, or STFU and GTFO.

The safety argument reeks of erroneously ignoring the possibility of rare events similar to Chernobyl or Fukushima. Maybe it's expedience, maybe they were taught at school to ignore outliers when drawing smoothed graphs.

Or maybe "this time it's different"... because next-generation plants will not be susceptible to unforeseen disasters.


If people want efficient solar: grow and harvest high-energy crops and forests for fuel.
-land usage is far more efficient than any system of mirrors or panels.
-plants produce a natural 3d matrix that has far superior light absorption qualities than panels. (Reflected light is scattered downwards).
-It's carbon-neutral, and plays much better with local fauna compared to solar panel factories or arrays of mirrors, or wind turbines.

New Nuclear Power Seen as Big Winner in Obama’s Energy Plan





The Obama administration is giving the struggling U.S. nuclear industry a glimmer of hope with changes to its carbon emission rules that mean new reactors will count more toward meeting federal benchmarks.

States will be able to take more credit for future carbon-free electricity to be generated by nuclear power plants still under construction when meeting their emission reduction targets, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a call on Sunday. The targets are required under the EPA’s landmark Clean Power Plan that was unveiled on Monday.

Under last year’s draft of the rules, the yet-to-be completed reactors were counted as existing units that wouldn’t be fully credited for carbon reductions generated in the future after they started operating. The nuclear power industry complained that amounted to a penalty on the plants and made state targets harder to achieve.

“We tend to view new rules as potentially the first bit of good news for the struggling nuclear industry,” Julien Dumoulin-Smith, an analyst for UBS, wrote on Monday in a research note.

Nuclear operators are being challenged by high maintenance and clean up costs as well as competition from cheap natural-gas fueled power plants and low-cost wind and solar generation. About 10 percent of the nation’s nuclear output could be retired early due to low energy prices, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The question of waste disposal also hangs over the industry as efforts to establish a federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have stalled.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group, said it was “pleased” that the EPA recognized that nuclear plants under construction “should count toward compliance when they are operating,” according to an e-mail statement from Marvin Fertel, president of the group.

Fertel said the industry was disappointed that existing reactors won’t get credit for their carbon-reduction value given that some plants are at risk for early retirement, according to the statement.

Delayed Projects

New reactor projects - the first in decades - have been plagued by delays and cost increases.

Beneficiaries of the rule changes would include Southern Co. and Scana Corp., which are building new reactors in Georgia and South Carolina, respectively. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which is building a reactor at its Watts Bar facility near Spring City, Tennessee, would also get a boost.

“We had indicated that any nuclear facility that was under construction would be considered as part of the standard-setting process,” U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a call with reporters Sunday. The agency reconsidered after reviewing comments, and now will be counting new nuclear under construction as “a compliance strategy,” she said.

“If nuclear plants already under construction can be counted toward a state’s carbon reduction goals, then those states may not have to do something else to reduce carbon,” said Paul Patterson, a New York-based utility analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC.

Utility Concerns

The rule changes address one of TVA’s “major concerns,” Scott Brooks, a spokesman for Tennessee Valley Authority, said in a statement Monday.

“That means we can count Watts Bar Unit 2, scheduled to be online within the next year, as part of our compliance plan.”

Southern is reviewing the final rules and remained concerned that they “impede state’s authority to act in the best interests of customers,” Tim Leljedal, a spokesman for Southern, said in an e-mail statement Monday.

Southern said in January that delays may add more than $700 million in costs to the twin reactors its building at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Georgia. The company has said customers won’t have to pay for those setbacks.

“Nuclear facilities will be credited because it’s new, zero-carbon generation that will be credited as part of a compliance strategy,” McCarthy said. “We think that’s entirely consistent and appropriate.”



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/new-nuclear-power-seen-as-big-winner-in-obama-s-power-plan

If we store the radioactive waste properly, then there will be no issues. The problems arise only when it is not contained properly. The Americans and the Europeans are doing it properly, by storing them in gigantic lead containers in isolated and remote areas. Also, the net volume of the radio active waste generated from the nuclear plants is much smaller when compared to the toxic waste generated during the manufacturing of solar panels. 

It's a difficult issue, but can you compare the toxicity of those chemicals to radiation? I'm no expert , but a small leak of the wrong radioactive stuff could have devastating effects, let alone a melt down.

Do you know how many tons of toxic chemicals are produced as byproduct, during the manufacturing of a single solar panel? Solar energy produces huge amount of toxic waste. And moreover, it is extremely expensive when compared to the other forms of energy. And with today's technology, there are innovative ways to take care of the nuclear waste, which makes it more preferable to the other forms of energy.