unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Because even Trump and Cameron cannot bluff their way past the science. Oh yes "the science". What does that even mean? Science is not a thing to be either true or false. It's a method of gaining knowledge. What is it that you think "the science" says that Cameron disagrees with. Anyway Cameron is no longer even an MP. What's he got to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts. The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal I thought we were talking about the number of people killed per terawatt hour of power produced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 The USA has I think about 50,000 tonnes of high level waste, which is the total amount ever created by them. Assuming that was all in flasks, you could comfortably store it in a football stadium. Mind you people say its waste. I see that as 50,000 tonnes of fuel for a molten salt reactor that will just produce lots of lead at the very end of the cycle..... Quite so. The Th cycle technology has yet to pass commercial viability tests but it's facility for burning waste from traditional reactors is a pretty big bonus. I think the waste from these reactors is inert after about 50 years. ---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 11:35 ---------- I thought we were talking about the number of people killed per terawatt hour of power produced... Yes apparently we've moved on to costs so that those arguing against nuclear on safety grounds can remain in the debate without conceding. There's a rather obvious crude segue on the previous page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Because even Trump and Cameron cannot bluff their way past the science. That's the beauty of science. It's rather difficult to bluff. The science tells us that you can store and look after spent fuel safely. It tells us that we can burn all that "waste" as a fuel in a LFTR reactor. Such a device would let you fuel the entire UK - transport, heating, electric, everything on about 120 tonnes of thorium a year. That's about oh I dunno 500 milkcrates of metal. To run everything. So why isn't it being done? Because you have organisations like Greenpeace and FoE whining incessanatly about things they are scared of and don't understand, because people before them whined about them because they didn't understand, and because it's just too much work to actually learn something and understand. No it's easier to just be afraid and want to live in caves and knit yoghurt becaue without that fight without the struggle they would be nothing and irrelevant. I'd put them up against a wall and shoot the lot of them. They are the biggest block to progress in the entire world at the moment. ---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 11:47 ---------- Quite so. The Th cycle technology has yet to pass commercial viability tests but it's facility for burning waste from traditional reactors is a pretty big bonus. I think the waste from these reactors is inert after about 50 years The biggest problem is Kr-85. It gets sparged out and needs storing for a few years - it's a gas, theres a lot of it, and it's rather active. It can be used as a low grade heat source but it's rather tricky to add back in for transmutation by neutron bombardment although people are looking at doing this. Problem is that reduces the breeding ratio if you do - you can get round that by taking the Pa out and letting it decay to U-233 and then theres more fuel (which improves the neutron budget) but that's another processing step. However all these are still minor issues to our current waste storage problem, which isn't really a problem at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 That's the beauty of science. It's rather difficult to bluff. The science tells us that you can store and look after spent fuel safely. It tells us that we can burn all that "waste" as a fuel in a LFTR reactor. Such a device would let you fuel the entire UK - transport, heating, electric, everything on about 120 tonnes of thorium a year. That's about oh I dunno 500 milkcrates of metal. To run everything. So why isn't it being done? Because you have organisations like Greenpeace and FoE whining incessanatly about things they are scared of and don't understand, because people before them whined about them because they didn't understand, and because it's just too much work to actually learn something and understand. No it's easier to just be afraid and want to live in caves and knit yoghurt becaue without that fight without the struggle they would be nothing and irrelevant. I'd put them up against a wall and shoot the lot of them. They are the biggest block to progress in the entire world at the moment. ---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 11:47 ---------- The biggest problem is Kr-85. It gets sparged out and needs storing for a few years - it's a gas, theres a lot of it, and it's rather active. It can be used as a low grade heat source but it's rather tricky to add back in for transmutation by neutron bombardment although people are looking at doing this. Problem is that reduces the breeding ratio if you do - you can get round that by taking the Pa out and letting it decay to U-233 and then theres more fuel (which improves the neutron budget) but that's another processing step. However all these are still minor issues to our current waste storage problem, which isn't really a problem at the moment. I think they do understand. They do this for a living, the information is not that complicated and it's all been out there for decades. They understand completely and they maintain their position anyway because it is in the personal interest to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexo Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 U.S. Companies to Trump: Don’t Abandon Global Climate Deal Hundreds of American companies, including Mars, Nike, Levi Strauss and Starbucks, have urged President-elect Donald J. Trump not to abandon the Paris climate deal, saying a failure by the United States to build a clean economy endangers American prosperity. In answer to the topic of this thread, it's good to see this from American businesses. It's a couple of decades later than it could have been - and the problem gets more costly and difficult with every passing year - but at least we've moved on from the "pollution as usual" agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 U.S. Companies to Trump: Don’t Abandon Global Climate Deal Hundreds of American companies, including Mars, Nike, Levi Strauss and Starbucks, have urged President-elect Donald J. Trump not to abandon the Paris climate deal, saying a failure by the United States to build a clean economy endangers American prosperity. In answer to the topic of this thread, it's good to see this from American businesses. It's a couple of decades later than it could have been - and the problem gets more costly and difficult with every passing year - but at least we've moved on from the "pollution as usual" agenda. Nothing terribly wrong with the Paris plans. Just build lots of nuclear power stations. Perhaps it's appropriate that the deal was made in France where they get most of their electricity from nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'd put them up against a wall and shoot the lot of them. They are the biggest block to progress in the entire world at the moment. I'm not sure that the oh so powerful green lobby has as much influence as you suggest on government energy policy. Certainly not enough to want to murder people imo. In any case surely their influence is completely dwarfed by the vast money and resources poured into politics by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industries? Do you reserve as much anger for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'm not sure that the oh so powerful green lobby has as much influence as you suggest on government energy policy. Certainly not enough to want to murder people imo. In any case surely their influence is completely dwarfed by the vast money and resources poured into politics by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industries? Do you reserve as much anger for them? Based on what? This is just a popular meme supported by the green lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 In any case surely their influence is completely dwarfed by the vast money and resources poured into politics by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industries? Do you have a reference for that assertion that doesn't come from the green lobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now