Topic: NUCLEAR IS GREENEST TECHNOLOGY CLAIM 65 TOP BIOLOGISTS - page 4. (Read 4210 times)

Wind and solar can very easily and constantly meet the demand.
http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/29/carl-pope-grid-reliability-myth

They would also already be way more abundant if it was a level playing field. But that's not the case. Nuclear and Oil receive way more subsidies (/benefits) than renewables. This is not a technological contest, it's political.

Solar panels and wind turbines scale very easily. They can be owned by governments, corporations, organisations and individuals. That's what gives them their potential. We used to have a few energy provides covering multiple nations. Now we have hundreds of grass-roots organisations supplying to the grid for each region (province level). Exciting times indeed.

Or let me phrase it different the word 'nuclear' is synonym for 'centralised'. That's why it surprises me to see so much support for it around here.

I'm a biologist and I tend to agree. If we could get more from solar it would be the greenest, but it's just not enough to meet the demand. Nuke power is the only non-greenhouse option we have. Of course, when it goes wrong it goes very wrong and leaves places uninhabited, but our options are dwindling.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Naturally-Occurring-Radioactive-Materials-NORM/

 

Personally I have no problem with radioactivity... It's an eternal and inevitable part of our world, just like air, water or sunlight:





(c) myself

However, I have problem with these greenpeace zombies, who have brought nothing but damage and growing entropy.

 

Knock-Knock! It's ignorance knocking.

whos gonna pay when (not if, when) tschernobyl and fukushima is gonna happen again?

of course nuclear is nearly emission free, but what about the question of security and final disposal?
there are types of nuclear reactors in development though that could be a big advantage in the area of security and final disposal - but until they work and run 20-30 years could have easily gone by...

My sister got infected with this shit recently and tried to infect me through talking about e-mobiles. I've tried to tell her that electricity should be produced at power station before she will be able to use it. She then answered me "I'll try to discuss this issue with guys from our company" and continued to tell me the same shit... E-mobiles will save the world blah blah blah...

They also have no idea that coal, oil and other natural fossils have significant amounts of uranium and thorium... As the result, coal powered plants introduced greater amounts of radioactivity than Chernobyl & Fukushima & all other accidents being combined.

Here is the greenest of all, in a few years it should be ready for mass deployment (results of the Lugano report):

9. Summary and concluding remarks
A 32-day test was performed on a reactor termed E-Cat, capable of producing heat by exploiting an unknown reaction primed by heating and some electro-magnetic stimulation. In the past years, the same collaboration has performed similar measurements on reactors operating in like manner, but differing both in shape and construction materials from the one studied here. Those tests have indicated an anomalous production of heat, which prompted us to attempt a new, longer test. The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test set-up, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here.
Our measurement, based on calculating the power emitted by the reactor through radiation and convection, gave the following results: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat beyond any other known conventional source of energy. Even if one conservatively repeats the same calculations with reference to the weight of the whole reactor rather than that of its internal charge, one gets results confirming the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 ∙ 104 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 ∙ 103 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density.
The quantity of heat emitted constantly by the reactor and the length of time during which the reactor was operating rule out, beyond any reasonable doubt, a chemical reaction as underlying its operation. This is emphasized by the fact that we stand considerably more than two order of magnitudes from the region of the Ragone plot occupied by conventional energy sources.
The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several methods before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium and Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before the run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take place via nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in the burning process. This is also what can be suspected from the excessive heat being generated in the process.
Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed. Since we are presently not in possession of this information, we think that any attempt to explain the E-Cat heating process would be too much hampered by the lack of this information, and thus we refrain from such discussions.
In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.

Well, those green guys usually don't know what they talking about. Many of them talking rubbish about the greatness of solar panels and wind turbines but most of them unaware of the real world efficiency,  and the amount of energy consumed by the manufacturing process of these things.  ... ignorance is bliss.

Sixty-five of the world’s leading biologists are demanding the “historical antagonism” towards nuclear power from the green lobby end. In an open letter, the group is expected to claim it is too risky to replace fossil fuels with wind turbines and are calling for nuclear to be in the “energy mix” as it is the greenest technology of all.



They have concluded that of all the major ‘green’ energy sources, nuclear provides the best cost-benefit ratio. But it has long been opposed by green campaigners, who believe technologies like wind and wave power can meet western energy needs whilst cutting emissions.

The biologists point out that technologies like wind turbines have a far larger footprint than nuclear, pushing out wildlife. They believe the space freed up by nuclear energy could be used to promote biodiversity. “It is time that conservationists make their voices heard in this policy area,” says the open letter.

Although the full text of the letter is not available until it is published in next month’s Conservation Biology journal, some extracts have been published in the Independent.

One section reads: “Much as leading climate scientists have recently advocated the development of safe, next-generation nuclear energy systems to combat climate change, we entreat the conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy sources using objective evidence and pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is ‘green’.”

It continues: “Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimise net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energy-related biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals.”

The letter is being organised by Professor Barry Brook of the University of Tasmania, who has already co-authored a paper looking at how nuclear could be used to protect the environment. The group also includes the former government chief scientific adviser, Lord May of Oxford.

Another signatory, Professor Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide, said: “Many so-called green organisations and individuals, including scientists, have avoided or actively lobbied against proven zero-emissions technologies like nuclear because of the associated negative stigma.”

He continued: “Our main goal was to show – through careful, objective scientific analysis – that on the basis of cost, safety, emissions reduction, land use and pollution, nuclear power must be considered in the future energy mix.”

David Morris MP, Chairman of Conservative Friends of Nuclear Energy, welcomed the letter: “These scientists are right, nuclear has no emissions and is plainly the greenest energy source of them all.

“Heysham Nuclear Power Station in my constituency is surrounded by a wide variety of small animals and wild plant life. Filling the country with expensive, inefficient and ugly wind turbines represents a real threat to rural areas.

“I hope everyone will take note of what these experts are saying.”


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/05/nuclear-is-greenest-technology-claim-65-top-biologists/


--------------------------------------------------------
Finally...