Is nuclear energy expensive? « Carbon Counter. Is nuclear energy expensive? Posted on Updated on George Osborne tells us today that we need to solve climate change on the cheap. By on the cheap he means keeping nuclear energy and fracking as options. Fracking, I guess will displace the electricity generated by all of the UK’s coal plants. Naturally a lot of environmentalists have taken to Twitter to mock the idea that nuclear energy is cheap. The official line is this: nuclear energy is expensive, gas is expensive, and the way to keep bills down is to invest in renewables. More importantly, solar is a fundamentally limited option for the UK.
And we have a similar problem with onshore wind. But like it or not, offshore wind is now the only scalable form of renewable energy in Britain. Like this: Like Loading... PRISM_Triplett_Loewen_Dooies.pdf. Complaint about misleading Helen Caldicott article in “The Saturday Paper” Guest Post by Geoff Russell. Geoff recently released the popular book “Greenjacked! The derailing of environmental action on climate change“.
Preamble Following a recent article by Helen Caldicott in The Saturday Paper I submitted the following complaint to The Australian Press Council. Unfortunately TSP isn’t a member of the Press Council. Nonetheless they were kind enough to review my complaint and informed me that op-ed articles are judged rather differently from news reports and that even if TSP were a member, they would take no action. Given the high number of factually incorrect claims by Caldicott, I asked for an example of a false or misleading claim that would warrant Press Council action. Helen Caldicott is a well known ex-pat anti-nuclear activist.
Erik Jensen of The Saturday Paper rejected the piece saying they didn’t have space and suggested I submit a 100 word letter instead. Again misleading. This is wrong on a number of counts. Simply plain wrong. Total rubbish. Related. Martin-Rees-Dr-Alvin-Weinberg-Centenary-Lecture.pdf. MSadventure.pdf. Rebuttals to Paper Criticizing Thorium. Health Published on September 12th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan September 12th, 2012 by Zachary Shahan The other day, I published a post on “Why Thorium Nuclear Isn’t Featured on CleanTechnica.” The key portion of the post was a paper on thorium nuclear power put out by Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. A reader dropped in two good rebuttals to that paper in the comments below my post, and they seem worthy of reposting here. Now, before reposting those, two of the comments on the second piece that I’m reposting remain unanswered, so I’m going to repeat them in case someone can answer them here: If thorium in a liquid-fluoride reactor (LFR) is so wonderful and was approximately 50 years ago discovered to work, why do we still not have any working example of this, or any clear investment in developing at least one of these reactors?
For now, I’m reposting (what seem like) good rebuttals to the paper I posted the other day. Mr. Mr. Bismuth 213 Cancer Treatment. Recycling Nuclear Fuels. Could Reactors Make Heat & Clean Water? | Siouxsie Downs + Conrad Farnsworth | TEDxYouth@MileHigh. Nuclear Power Plants Safe from Terrorist Attacks - Canadian Nuclear Association. Since 2001, much of the Western world has been living with what’s been called the “New Normal,” which came in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks. Increased security at airports, borders and major public events is part of this new way of life.
Being part of critical infrastructure, the nuclear power industry is often cited in media stories as a potential terrorist target. Shortly after 9/11, there was much media speculation, especially in the U.S., about the possibility of terrorists hijacking a commercial airliner and flying it into a nuclear reactor causing a meltdown. In 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute released a study that concluded, “The structures that house reactor fuel are robust and protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft.”
In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has also examined the issue of an airliner attack on a nuclear plant and concluded that the public would not be at risk to radiation exposure as a result of such an event. Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists - Science - News. Nuclear power is one of the least damaging sources of energy for the environment, and the green movement must accept its expansion if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, some of the world's leading conservation biologists have warned. Rising demand for energy will place ever greater burdens on the natural world, threatening its rich biodiversity, unless societies accept nuclear power as a key part of the "energy mix", they said.
And so the environmental movement and pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace should drop their opposition to the building of nuclear power stations. In an open letter published on the Brave New Climate blog, more than 65 biologists, including a former UK government chief scientist, support the call to build more nuclear power plants as a central part of a global strategy to protect wildlife and the environment. "Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimise net environmental damage.
10. Science Brief: Coal and Gas are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power. Coal and Gas are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power By Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen — April 2013 Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximize effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon and carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables, as well as energy efficiency improvements. Figure 1. Cumulative net deaths prevented assuming nuclear power replaces fossil fuels. The top panel (a) shows results for the historical period in our study (1971-2009), with mean values (labeled) and ranges for the baseline historical scenario. In a recently published paper (ref. 1), we provide an objective, long-term, quantitative analysis of the effects of nuclear power on human health (mortality) and the environment (climate).
Figure 2. Figure 3. If the world built nuclear power plants at the rate Sweden had, there would be no need for fossil in 25 years. With all its cons and pros, at this time, nuclear power remains our best shot at decarbonizing the planet and ridding the world of its dependence of fossil fuel. During the 60s and 70s, many of the world’s governments, including France, the US or the USSR embarked on ambitious projects to electrify their nations using nuclear power. Accidents like those at Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011) served to halt this rapid pace of deployment and even shift policy back to massive fossil fuel deployment. Anti-nuclear power public sentiment did little to help, of course.
Considering that the combined power of solar, wind and hydropower can’t yet rid us of pesky oil and gas, wouldn’t it be better if we embraced nuclear nevertheless, with all its shortcoming (many of which have been addressed by modern technology)? Two researchers wondered if the world was to hypothetically shift in high nuclear gear, how long would it take to completely shelve fossil. Meltdown or Mother Lode (3 Nuclear Technologies and Why You Should Be Excited) | Steven Kotler. This piece was adapted from Tomorrowland: Our Journey from Science Fiction to Science Fact by Steven Kotler. We use a lot of energy. A lot of energy. Thus, if you want to talk safety and security, you have to start with the options available. Can solar and wind even satisfy our needs? New York Times journalist and author of Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Power, Gwyneth Cravens, explains further: "If an American got all his or her lifetime electricity solely from nuclear power, that person's share of waste would fit into one soda can.
Settling this debate may take some time--and since time is the one luxury both sides agree we don't have--there are heated arguments about the best way forward. Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Development of the IFR began in 1984 and by 1992, the designs were complete, but then Bill Clinton decided to save money by shutting down any nuclear projects he deemed unnecessary. Among the problems "solved" by IFR is safety. Meltdown or Mother Lode (3 Nuclear Technologies and Why You Should Be Excited) | Steven Kotler. 347.pdf. TE-1753_web. World's First NUCLEAR SALT REACTOR - Documentary Films. The Dual Fluid Reactor - A new Concept for a Fast Nuclear Reactor.
Don Larson - Recycling CO₂ in U.S. Navy with SMR. Europe has a Thorium MSR Project - SAMOFAR. TU-Delft, host to a symposium on the perspectives of Thorium in the Molten Salt Reactor in Deft today, presented the European Thorium MSR Project - SAMOFAR - due to start in August 2015. This announcement is clear sign of European interest in Thorium MSRs. It cannot be seen as a national program like the ones in China and India but is a good start and hopefully will lead to a host nation within EU stepping in as a major actor. A symposium on the perspectives of Thorium in the Molten Salt Reactor was held today at the Technical University of Delft, Netherlands.
The symposium host, TU-Delt, presented and officially announced a European Thorium MSR Project - SAMOFAR - due to start in August 2015. SAMOFAR (Safety Assessment of the Molten Salt Fast Reactor) is a European Commission Horizon 2020 -funded project with 11 partners from both science and industry. The scientific partners are CNRS, JRC-ITU, CIRTEN, PSI and CINVESTAV.
Tim van der Hagen and Jan Leen Kloosterman from TU Delft. James Hansen: To Mitigate Climate Change, Nuclear Energy Should Be Included. James Hansen, a former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who was one of the first scientists to raise concerns about global climate change, spoke at MIT Tuesday in the biennial David J. Rose Lecture, sponsored by the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE). Hansen came to prominence in the late 1980s, when he first testified before Congress about the perils of accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “I think it’s really important that young people understand the situation that we older people are leaving them with,” said Hansen, currently an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to deal with … and I’ve become frustrated with governments that don’t recognize their responsibilities to future generations.”
James Hansen delivers the 13th annual David Rose Lecture at MIT’s Wong Auditorium. “We have an emergency,” Hansen said. Some effects of climate change, he said, are simply irreversible. Website Orientation and Navigation Guide (Go Nuclear) - Go Nuclear. Nuclear power: Environmentalists need to view nuclear power realistically - latimes. What a strange turn of events. Instead of uniting the environmental movement in renewed opposition to nuclear power, the Fukushima disaster in Japan has divided it still further. An increasing number of green advocates, including some very prominent voices, have declared their support for nuclear power as a clean energy option, even as radioactive water accumulates and the timeline for cleaning up the contaminated areas extends by decades.
Can they be serious? They can. The irony of Fukushima is that in forcing us all to confront our deepest fears about the dangers of nuclear power, we find many of them to be wildly irrational -- based on scare stories propagated through years of unchallenged mythology and the repeated exaggerations of self-proclaimed "experts" in the anti-nuclear movement. The science on radiation tells us that the effects of Fukushima are serious but so far much less so than some of the more hyperbolic media coverage might suggest. Gen IV Nuclear: The IFR | Decarbonise SA.
An article published to OnLine Opinion about the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) was so brain-spinningly inaccurate and full of mangled information, that it gave me and Tom Keen the opportunity to write a good clear technical account of what IFR is and how it actually works. This article is perhaps one step up from the very basics of IFR, which you can read about in this earlier piece. You can also get the basics from this great video.
I have posted the first third or so of the more detailed article here, with a link to OnLine Opinion for the rest. Your comments are welcomed here, but probably best over at OnLine Opinion. Here’s a sound principle: When writing opinion pieces that criticise internationally renowned scientists, use the best possible information. When Noel Wauchope criticised Barry Brook’s position on Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) technology (Answering Barry Brook on Australia’s nuclear power future 12 June 2012), she didn’t adhere to this principle. Enter the IFR. Like this: BBC - Horizon - 2006 - Nuclear Nightmares. E06 Is Nuclear Power Safe. Inside Japan?s Nuclear Meltdown. For Fukushima Workers, Cancer Isn’t the Only Health Threat March 19, 2013, 11:08 am ET · by Sarah Childress Since the disaster, Fukushima’s workers have been shunned and some are experiencing severe mental trauma.
Watch what happened to them that day. Fukushima Radiation Estimate Doubles, But Cancer Risk Lower Than Expected May 25, 2012, 1:50 pm ET · by Jason M. Breslow The new findings come from three separate analyses presented this week by the Tokyo Electric Power Company, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations. Fukushima Reactor Damage May Be Worse Than Previously Thought March 30, 2012, 5:29 pm ET · by Bill Rockwood The damage to reactor two at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant may be more more serious than the Tokyo Electric … Continue reading Voices From the Inside: Fukushima’s Workers Speak March 11, 2012, 12:05 pm ET · by Gretchen Gavett Live Chat 3 p.m.
February 29, 2012, 12:38 am ET · by Nathan Tobey “The Workers We Spoke to Thought They Were Going to Die” International Experience with Fast Reactor Operation & Testing | Brave New Climate. Below is a highly informative presentation given by Dr John Sackett (Idaho National Laboratory, Retired) at the International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles (Paris, 2013). John, with a 34-year career in advanced reactor and fuel-cycle development (including work on the Integral Fast Reactor from 1984-1994), provides a clear summary of historical-international experience with fast reactor programmes and initiatives to recycle used fuel.
This is important information for advocates of ‘Generation IV’ nuclear technologies to understand, because the question of “is it proven to work?” Is often asked by the skeptical. Much of this will be familiar to those who have read “Plentiful Energy“, but this is an excellent condensed version of that material. EBR-II was a Major Contributor to the Technology • EBR-I was followed by EBR-II, which was a complete power plant.
Like this: Like Loading... Related IFR FaD 7 - Q&A on Integral Fast Reactors - safe, abundant, non-polluting power. Improving Nuclear Energy Going Forward. At the heart of the modern energy debate is a struggle between the need for more energy globally, while simultaneously achieving lower emissions. Nuclear energy is uniquely positioned to help respond to these dueling necessities, but innovative advancements must overcome considerable barriers. The topic of nuclear energy can be a polarizing one, but all sides agree that the nuclear energy sector could benefit from significant innovation. From March 3 to 5, more than 120 global energy experts met in six cities across the U.S. to discuss innovation in nuclear energy.
Unlike typical conferences organized around a series of prepared presentations, these workshops were driven by small-group brainstorming about some of nuclear energy’s most pressing challenges. The goal of these workshops was twofold: 1) To gather input from energy experts that could help improve strategy and collaboration for innovating nuclear technologies in the U.S. and globally. Connect: Authored by: Todd Allen. Nuclear Power Plant Simulator free online game. Some Thoughts on Fukushima, Conspiracy Theorists and Science Communication. Pro-nuclear Green candidate faces axe - UK Politics - UK - The Independent. Energy and nuclear power - Ockham's Razor. French Senate Battles Hollande’s Pledge to Curb Nuclear Reactors - Bloomberg Business. Google Image Result for. Solve for X - Leslie Dewan - Power from Nuclear Waste. Nuclear Waste: Fission Products & Transuranics from Thorium & Uranium - "Th" Documentary.
Solve for X - Leslie Dewan - Power from Nuclear Waste. Radiation hormesis? | Brave New Climate. What is nuclear? / Molten Salt Reactors. How thorium can solve the nuclear waste problem in conventional reactors - The Alvin Weinberg Foundation. Nuclear alchemy: Thorium promises power from waste - environment - 30 May 2012. 06221500C09344B8AB4694AB78DE65FB.pdf. Renewables and Costs in Germany. TAP_White_Paper.pdf. Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. TEDxNewEngland | 11/01/11 | The Future of Nuclear Power: Getting Rid of Nuclear Waste.
Could molten salts do for low carbon energy what it did for aluminium? - The Alvin Weinberg Foundation. Radiation hormesis? | Brave New Climate. Wired 12.09: Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom. Pebble-bed reactor. SPECIAL REPORT-The U.S. government lab behind China's nuclear power push. Good reasons not to waste nuclear ‘waste’ What can we learn from Kerala? | Brave New Climate. Pandora’s Back Pages. How Molten Salt Reactors Will Change Green Energy | DNews | TestTube.
Facts about Thorium Molten Salt Reactors - Thorium MSR.