12 results for month: 02/2010


"Enemies" of the Earth and their Anti-Nuke Ads

"Even if nuclear reactors weren't top terrorist targets..."Lie. A nuclear reactor is a terrible target. It's about the hardest target you could even go after, encased in concrete and steel that would crush a plane in seconds."Even if radioactive waste didn't remain deadly for 10,000 years..."What are you talking about? Are you going to eat it or something? Do you think something magic happens in the 10,001st year? Do you think eating the toxic heavy metals that make up a solar panel is less deadly? Do you think that the impact of a thrown blade from a windmill is safe? Do you think that the explosion of a fossil-gas power plant doesn't kill?"...

Great Comment from a Reader

(this was posted as a comment in the wrong thread, but I thought it deserved to be brought to the front)It happens I wrote a blog post about this accident when it occurred, to the same point- that we tolerate many more dangerous substances than nuclear, and many more deaths from them, than we ever would from nuclear power.If this had happened at one of our 108 nuclear power plants, mass hysteria would have transpired. There would be angry demonstrations replete with eco-tards chaining themselves to the fences around the plants,at every nuclear plant in the country. There would be congressional hearings. The news media would be filled with angry ...

Two Weeks Since 6 People Were Killed by Natural Gas Explosion

In an event that has already faded into the dim and ancient memory of our media, two weeks ago there was a catastrophic explosion at a natural-gas-fired powerplant under construction in Connecticut.Six people were killed and many more were injured. A $1B development was destroyed.I can't help but compare and contrast "clean and safe natural gas" to "dirty and dangerous nuclear power"....Hmmm, how many people have been killed by civilian nuclear power plant accidents in the United States?None.But lots of people get killed by natural gas explosions and coal mining accidents, to say nothing for the tens of thousands slowly killed by the emissions of ...

Depleted Cranium: Why You Can’t Build a Bomb From Spent Fuel

You're going to want to bookmark this one for later reference:Why You Can’t Build a Bomb From Spent FuelProbably one of the best that's been on Depleted Cranium, and Steve Packard sets the bar pretty high for himself.

Bill Gates Briefly Mentions LFTR–I Think!

Boy, sometimes someone mentions something to a group of people that give a concept a level of credibility no money could buy:13:28 -- "there are some innovations in nuclear...modular, liquid..."23:10 -- "there's a liquid-type reactor, which seems a little hard...but maybe they say that about us."Here's the original link to the TED site.

EcoHearth Article on Nuclear Energy

Steven Kotler: Meltdown or Mother Lode: The New Truth About Nuclear PowerLately we've been seeing a lot more discussion about nuclear power on "environmentalist" and other left-leaning sites that have traditionally been opposed to nuclear. I know that part of this has been driven by the interest in building new reactors and reducing CO2 emissions, as well as by the President's announcement of new loan guarantees to help build nuclear power plants.But there is a fascinating sub-thread in many of these articles, especially in the comments sections: some folks who have been "anti-nuclear" are now publicly stating that they are "pro-thorium".The WIRED ...

Is Thorium a "Clean Little Secret?"

Maybe the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor is, since the vast majority of the nuclear industry doesn't know anything about it.But thanks to the WIRED article, the word is leaking out, and I was pleasantly surprised to find this article yesterday.change.org: Thorium: Nuclear Energy's Clean Little SecretI was even more surprised when I looked at the website it was on.

We're Not Smart Enough to Build Nuclear Power

I've heard a lot of bone-headed arguments against nuclear power, but this one's right up there near the top:Huffington Post: Back to School on Nuclear PowerStart with the fact that we haven't built a new nuclear plant in over a generation. That means that the profession of nuclear engineering has not been much of a draw for at least that long. Our best and brightest STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students went into other fields, like computer science, biology, or even finance. The breakthroughs they achieved over the last generation have transformed the way we live, giving us the Information Age, the biotechnology revolution, ...

An Excellent Defense of U-233 Preservation

A number of people are writing to their elected officials and others, asking them to preserve the precious U-233 inventory of the United States from permanent destruction at an absurd cost of $477 million dollars.This letter will be sent to Secretary Chu by one of our regular commenters "arcs_n_sparks", who addressed some specific concerns of the DOE based on his own experience. This letter is reproduced with permission:Dr. Steven ChuSecretary of EnergyS?1/Forrestal BuildingU.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Ave., S.W.Washington, DC 20585Reference: U?233 Downblending and DispositionDear Secretary Chu,I urge the Department of Energy to ...

$477M to Destroy Precious U-233

The latest news about the destruction of the precious uranium-233 at ORNL is that the price tag continues to go up:U-233 project in flux; pricetag's on the riseThe latest project estimate is $477 million. That includes the contractor's "interim project baseline" (of $404 million), plus $73 million of DOE-held contingency, etc.The Oak Ridge project is designed to mix the U-233 stocks with depleted uranium, eliminating its status as a special nuclear material, and ultimately disposing of what will be a high-activity, low-level radioactive waste at the Nevada Test Site.And I continue to point out--along with the help of many of the readers of this blog, ...