Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 19, 2018 4:55 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 03, 2013 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
i want to see nuclear power in america

i realize that 90% of most people dont care one single cent to listen to the " vast amount of technical advantages, both long term and short term related to the widespread adoption of nuclear energy(jobs, cheaper energy, long term reliability, ease of long term planning, and national security)" because the fossil industry points out a few of (help me list them)

"nuclear "waste" storage, ( nobody ever died from nuclear waste, people die right now from smoking, obesity, and diabetes)
catestrophic events,(they make it seem like hurricanes and tsunami are only dangerous if a nuclear reactor is involved)
*residual* radiation, (i wonder how many people die from the radon that sneaks under the earth)
cancer risks*(like a smoker really cares about cancer risks to himself or the people around him)."

Basically, I want a paragraph or two on any "OBJECTIONS" to nuclear power i find on the internets. I want pictures of such objections, and possibly animated GIFS.

For example, they mention nuclear waste, I say "nuclear waste? what about biomedical waste? what about the bodies of the people who died of aids?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 6:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
I think one place to start is by pointing out how inaccurate the LNT is at levels most people will be exposed to ionizing radiation and that the growing evidence is that at levels slightly above background radiation levels there is a positive health effect. It's fairly easy to scare people into opposing nuclear power when conventional wisdom is that ionizing radiation is hazardous at any level.

The next point can be the almost limitless amount of fissile and fertile fuel available with nuclear power, the great energy density compared to other fuels meaning much less material needs to be mined. This in connection with the low carbon emissions is one of the most powerful arguments for nuclear power right now.

The nuclear sector is also high tech and can be combined with REEs mining and high tech manufacturing, going nuclear can be seen as entering the 21st. Century in many ways while depending on fossil fuels is being stuck in the 19th and at best 20th Century.

Much is made of the "huge" disasters of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other nuclear incidents, but you can point out that people will be exposed to more radiation in New York's Grand Central Station or the Washington Capitol building due the heavy granite constructions with high concentrations of uranium than they will in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Also the deaths caused by radiation released from nuclear power over the last 50 or so years are still much lower than the number of people that die each year from air pollution mostly produced by fossil fuel burning.

I think being as positive as you can is the best approach, let the very biased anti-nuke people play the negative propaganda game. The science is behind nuclear power being the best option, go with the facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
DougC wrote:
I think one place to start is by pointing out how inaccurate the LNT is at levels most people will be exposed to ionizing radiation and that the growing evidence is that at levels slightly above background radiation levels there is a positive health effect. It's fairly easy to scare people into opposing nuclear power when conventional wisdom is that ionizing radiation is hazardous at any level.

The next point can be the almost limitless amount of fissile and fertile fuel available with nuclear power, the great energy density compared to other fuels meaning much less material needs to be mined. This in connection with the low carbon emissions is one of the most powerful arguments for nuclear power right now.

The nuclear sector is also high tech and can be combined with REEs mining and high tech manufacturing, going nuclear can be seen as entering the 21st. Century in many ways while depending on fossil fuels is being stuck in the 19th and at best 20th Century.

Much is made of the "huge" disasters of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other nuclear incidents, but you can point out that people will be exposed to more radiation in New York's Grand Central Station or the Washington Capitol building due the heavy granite constructions with high concentrations of uranium than they will in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Also the deaths caused by radiation released from nuclear power over the last 50 or so years are still much lower than the number of people that die each year from air pollution mostly produced by fossil fuel burning.

I think being as positive as you can is the best approach, let the very biased anti-nuke people play the negative propaganda game. The science is behind nuclear power being the best option, go with the facts.


can you repeat what you just said but without any nuclear terms or events?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
I have given this a lot of thought, and studied what environmentalist who have converted to accepting nuclear have said. As an old environmentalist myself, I think the answer to your strategy question has to be the final acceptance that renewables simply cannot power a modern world. In other words, the Greens who are now pro-nuclear actually come right out and admit that wind and solar cannot get the job done so they back nuclear as a way to reduce CO2. If we were to move optimally toward reduced CO2 we would not be investing in wind and solar at all (other than private investment for private use,) we would be researching and transitioning as quickly as possible to the best and safest nuclear options.

What this means, in my opinion, is society has to be well enough informed to understand that wind and solar cannot provide the future they want. I know the perils of this position, but frankly, until we educate people that wind and solar are not going to be the answer, nuclear will always have more difficulty than it should. It is easy to say "all of the above" but the economics and timing of getting to an optimal answer simply cannot afford "all of the above" -- to do so would mean a far longer transition time and a lot of money spent on unproductive activities. OK... go ahead and throw those tomatoes, I have said no less than some very distinguished environmentalists who have actually studied the problem quite carefully. And to my friends on this blog who often say (essentially) "we need to pursue all of the above" I strongly encourage you to think what such a strategy actually accomplishes.

N.B: If someone can show me the science and economics that contravenes this position, I am open to changing my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
I believe it was Bill Gates that said there are not enough batteries in the world to do what they want to do with wind and Solar. Pay attention to how he says it.

all of the above is easy to say when you know that no license will be given out because you appointed an anti-nuclear advocate to head the NRC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
rc1111 wrote:
I have given this a lot of thought, and studied what environmentalist who have converted to accepting nuclear have said. As an old environmentalist myself, I think the answer to your strategy question has to be the final acceptance that renewables simply cannot power a modern world. In other words, the Greens who are now pro-nuclear actually come right out and admit that wind and solar cannot get the job done so they back nuclear as a way to reduce CO2. If we were to move optimally toward reduced CO2 we would not be investing in wind and solar at all (other than private investment for private use,) we would be researching and transitioning as quickly as possible to the best and safest nuclear options.

What this means, in my opinion, is society has to be well enough informed to understand that wind and solar cannot provide the future they want. I know the perils of this position, but frankly, until we educate people that wind and solar are not going to be the answer, nuclear will always have more difficulty than it should. It is easy to say "all of the above" but the economics and timing of getting to an optimal answer simply cannot afford "all of the above" -- to do so would mean a far longer transition time and a lot of money spent on unproductive activities. OK... go ahead and throw those tomatoes, I have said no less than some very distinguished environmentalists who have actually studied the problem quite carefully. And to my friends on this blog who often say (essentially) "we need to pursue all of the above" I strongly encourage you to think what such a strategy actually accomplishes.

N.B: If someone can show me the science and economics that contravenes this position, I am open to changing my opinion.


you get it. you are smart!

I agree with you on all points. I do think it will be very hard sell to the solar lobby(ists?) and the wind lobby(ists?) to cut their massive government welfare checks, same with the farms that are selling land for the bird killing monsters(windmills). Image
Code:
What I fear, and what I hinted to in previous thread http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4135 that the biggest world powers do not like the idea that energy generation can be made from rocks. the idea of every country having access to unlimited amount of energy would have the limiting factor of (a countries world status) being primarily population based. (and right now china is catching up to usa, despite usa's massive head start. usa must be afraid of what virtually unlimited energy would mean for china vs usa). (this is why i think there is a massive global push by usa to ensure that SOLAR and WIND (which are SEVERELY limited in their energy production capability) becomes the "future" of the world)


In terms of this thread............. I was thinking more along the lines of

uninformed television watcher : nuclear energy is too costly

propaganda response :
you know whats costly? sending billions of dollars to saudi arabia for oil and hoping saudi arabia doesn't try to attack us again... thats costly.
you know whats costly? spending a trillion dollars invading iraq and hoping oil prices return to 2003 levels.
you know whats costly? 4 dollar gasoline .
If solar is so cheap, why does the government have to pay BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for people to install solar? ( and it still wont work at nighttime)
if wind is so cheap, why does every windmill installation get a bribe from the government?(google windmills blowring up in strong winds btw)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 21, 2007 7:06 pm
Posts: 97
There are some good-looking tips at http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf.

_________________
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 05, 2013 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
GRLCowan wrote:


Wow you did it right!

thanks very much

most of it i already figured out, but having it written out makes me feel much more confident in how to proceed!

A MUST READ LINK!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 05, 2013 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
I recommend focusing on the positive things and using lots of graphics.

Neuro scientists have discovered that the brain becomes more active when it receives a more positive fact than previously conceived.

So there is no reason to mention the negative myths. Start with the good, depicted graphically.

It's pretty easy. You start with an image comparing energy densities. The factor of a million advantage. Then you go on to show people the implications ("good") about this energy density, namely that you need little fuel and produce very little spent fuel. Then an image of some dry casks, showing how simple and easy it is to store the highly radioactive material. Then show an image of how rapidly the spent fuel becomes much less radioactive. Also be sure to compare the productivity (capacity factor) of the nuclear plant in a graph. This makes it instantly clear how useless something like photovoltaics is.

Back up the images with some key words to enforce the image in people's minds. Make use of colors like big green typefront to show a good thing about nuclear. Use big red typefront to show bad stuff about other energy sources.

Don't use the terms used by the stupid anti nuclear and stupid media. No terms like "nuclear waste". The very word is invented to do two things; firstly to scare people out of their wits, secondly to discourage any further technical debate or interest about just what this stuff is. The anti-nukes are very good at that. They like to score points by saying a few keywords like nuclear waste, chernobyl, proliferation, etc. The buckshow approach that keeps the debate dumb. In stead explain what material is involved, fission product, actinide, explain what it is.

I really wouldn't bother with the myths at all. When you present a few key positive facts about nuclear energy, most people will start a good thinking path that leads automatically to the banishment of the myths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 05, 2013 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 18, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 66
Ben Heard is very very good at this http://decarbonisesa.com/2013/09/12/community_support/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 05, 2013 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Take a look at this article:

Physicist Claims No Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/physicis ... 572516352#!

I read it and agreed with it. Then I read the reader comments. I suggest you do the same to get an idea of the level of ignorance out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 05, 2013 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
NicholasJanssen wrote:
can you repeat what you just said but without any nuclear terms or events?


We have a source of almost limitless energy that while it's often vilified by the uniformed is actually the most responsible and promising opportunity for the kind of future that will make our past look boring and unsophisticated in comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group