Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 23, 2018 7:38 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2013 2:24 pm
Posts: 8
Hi all. This is my first post. To introduce myself, I'm a big advocate of nuclear. I believe the obvious difficulties and dangers inherent to it are nothing compared to the more obscure dangers associated with burning coal; the newly emerging once-third-world energy market puts a ! on this issue.

I've been reading posts for a very long time. I'm humbled by the level of expertise and technical discourse that takes place here. I've learned by reading here that even though I thought I had a good understanding of the technology, it is really quite lacking. I've learned there are technical issues so esoteric I couldn't hope to understand them without a dedicated devotion to study. Sometimes I just have to skim posts looking for topics I understand.

Even my potential questions are so naive as to not be worth too much; I'm not sure I would understand the answers even if much simplified. Since lurking here, I realize that I don't know enough to frame them properly.

That is the nature of this post.

Cyril R wrote in a different thread:

Cyril R wrote:
To break this circle, you need to tackle the root cause of all the problems. Which is simply that people don't understand nuclear power. They know only what they hear, which is fearmongering, media speculation, and flat out lies.

It's not about trust. It's about knowledge.


In a word, I just don't think that is possible. Where would 'people' get this knowledge?

Not to disparage my fellow Americans, but if they know no math beyond what is necessary to balance their checkbooks (and often not even that), know no chemistry beyond what is necessary to make a good cup of coffee (and Keurig makes even that knowledge unnecessary), know nothing about physics, metallurgy, geology, or thermodynamics, how do you ever hope to educate them on the science of nuclear engineering? I'm afraid you're left with either bulldozing your way past them with politics or waiting until reality catches up with them and they come to your side because they're freezing in the winter.

Any comments?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
BobPink wrote:
I'm a big advocate of nuclear. I believe the obvious difficulties and dangers inherent


Bullshit. Nuclear power has been done for 60 years there is no difficulty. the backwards nations of n k0rea are able to use the power of the atom.

Bullshit about being dangerous. Smoking is dangerous, alcohol is dangerous, 120volts is enough to kill anyone on earth, traveling 60 mph into a concrete pillar is dangerous. flying is dangerous. smoking gives people cancer. yes, cancer can be prevented. cancer has known causes, smoking is one of them. high blood sugar kills people every day, fast food trans-fats kill people every hour.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
Quote:
Leading Causes of Death
(Data are for the U.S. and are final 2010 data; For the most recent preliminary data see Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 [PDF - 1.7 MB])

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Nuclear energy is not danger. Smoking is danger. Gasoline is danger. Carbon monoxide is danger. Circular saws are danger. Stray bullets are danger. Nuclear energy is not danger.



BobPink wrote:
I've been reading posts for a very long time. I'm humbled by the level of expertise and technical discourse that takes place here. I've learned by reading here that even though I thought I had a good understanding of the technology, it is really quite lacking. I've learned there are technical issues so esoteric I couldn't hope to understand them without a dedicated devotion to study. Sometimes I just have to skim posts looking for topics I understand.

Even my potential questions are so naive as to not be worth too much; I'm not sure I would understand the answers even if much simplified. Since lurking here, I realize that I don't know enough to frame them properly.

That is the nature of this post.

Cyril R wrote in a different thread:

Cyril R wrote:
To break this circle, you need to tackle the root cause of all the problems. Which is simply that people don't understand nuclear power. They know only what they hear, which is fearmongering, media speculation, and flat out lies.

It's not about trust. It's about knowledge.


In a word, I just don't think that is possible. Where would 'people' get this knowledge?

Not to disparage my fellow Americans, but if they know no math beyond what is necessary to balance their checkbooks (and often not even that), know no chemistry beyond what is necessary to make a good cup of coffee (and Keurig makes even that knowledge unnecessary), know nothing about physics, metallurgy, geology, or thermodynamics, how do you ever hope to educate them on the science of nuclear engineering? I'm afraid you're left with either bulldozing your way past them with politics or waiting until reality catches up with them and they come to your side because they're freezing in the winter.

Any comments?


100% percent right on math, science, chemistry, phyiscs, metalurgy, geology, thermodynamics. Most americans do not need to know even 1 percent of those subjects to lead happy healthy lives.

Americans still demand certain things from their governments, cheap gasoline is one of them. Cheap energy is another of them. Clean air and clean water is also on their list. Economic prosperity is also very high on that list. All of those things RELY ON NUCLEAR POWER.

When electricity becomes costly, when chinese, russians, indians, and brazilians have huge economy based on nuclear power, then america will demand it of their government. Time is on the side of nuclear. Solar and wind NEVER work without massive government payoffs and subsidies.

NUCLEAR ENERGY POWERS THE UNIVERSE. NUCLEAR ENERGY POWERS THE SUN.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Few people in the world demanded "freedom" before America lead the way.

In the same way, when others start to lead the way with clean and cheap as dirt nuclear energy, Americans will demand , clean and cheap as dirt nuclear energy, also.

It isn't about people understanding nuclear, it is about people demanding the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 494
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
explain why they support wind and solar which by simple math does not add up to being profitable? People even do not use even the simple math needed to balance a checkbook. They talk in a different language. What would that be?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1056
Nuclear power production is not compatible with slovenliness, stupidity, incompetence, greed, arrogance, bravado, audacity, procrastination, and inattention to detail.


It seems to me that the opponents of nuclear power are not against this important power source in principle per se; they distrust the human weakness in the people who are responsible to control it.


When these people are good and strong in their duty, all goes well, but when these people are flawed, in the due course of time bad things will eventually occur.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
It starts with the basics. Bill Hannahan's paper is a good start for most people.

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/s2_energy_facts.htm

And for those who care to read a bit more, the late Cohen's book is an excellent whopper that deals effectively with the many prejudices people have.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Refer to such authoritative sources and give people time to digest it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Ida-Russkie wrote:
explain why they support wind and solar which by simple math does not add up to being profitable? People even do not use even the simple math needed to balance a checkbook. They talk in a different language. What would that be?


Because anyone can understand how a windmill works or a solar panel.
wind = electricty
solar = sun electricity

Nobody gave 2 cents about wind/solar until the government started pouring tons of money into it, and the experts hailed it as "THE FUTURE OF ENERGY THAT WAS INVENTED 2000 years ago for windmills, and 180 years ago for solar cells."

If the government started funding nuclear as much as they fund fossil fuels, windmill, and solar panels watch how the sheeple will change directions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 27, 2013 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Axil wrote:
It seems to me that the opponents of nuclear power are not against this importaNuclear power production is not compatible with slovenliness, stupidity, incompetence, greed, arrogance, bravado, audacity, procrastination, and inattention to detail. nt power source in principle per se; they distrust the human weakness in the people who are responsible to control it.


It seems to me any opponent of nuclear is either directly or indirectly working for the fossil fuel lobby. Look at what happens when ANY country shuts down nuclear... coal plants are built.

Quote:
Depending on whom you talk to, the Moorburg plant coal plant is either a misstep that will derail Germany's goal of getting 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050—or a bridge that will allow Hamburg's industrial economy to thrive until enough renewables come on line. There's one perspective on which virtually all agree, though: The plant is evidence of the tough decisions and clashing interests at play as Germany tries to wean itself from nuclear energy and fossil fuels.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130 ... ower-plant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 28, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
BobPink wrote:
Not to disparage my fellow Americans, but if they know no math beyond what is necessary to balance their checkbooks (and often not even that), know no chemistry beyond what is necessary to make a good cup of coffee (and Keurig makes even that knowledge unnecessary), know nothing about physics, metallurgy, geology, or thermodynamics, how do you ever hope to educate them on the science of nuclear engineering? I'm afraid you're left with either bulldozing your way past them with politics or waiting until reality catches up with them and they come to your side because they're freezing in the winter.


Hi Bob,

Lack of education is a problem, but I don't think it's the main problem here. I'm certainly no chemist or physicist myself. The main problem is that so much misinformation and disinformation is fed to the public that we've gotten to the point where nuclear is a dirty word. As I've said before, we need to change the equation from

nuclear = dirty + dangerous to
nuclear = clean + safe

How do we do that? Since we probably can't afford to buy ABC, CBS, and NBC, we need to start a sort of "grass roots" effort. Don't just post on sites like this where you will be "preaching to the choir." Go to the renewable and anti-nuclear sites and post there. I've been posting on the Google+ renewable energy community, for example, and I can use some backup. Don't be rude, but get the facts out there. Post on all your social networks. If you don't know what to post, you can start with a link to my energy presentation slides at

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... slide=id.p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 29, 2013 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 17, 2013 9:21 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Oregon
I fear that the time is short for getting nuclear going. Wind and solar was tolerated by big oil as it seemingly was not a threat, but the installations are starting to have impacts, so the subsidies are going away, the buy of electricity being curtailed and there is a move to start taxing solar.

Look to Spain, they lead the world in going solar, but all of a sudden the power companies started losing money and the tax base. Very quickly they are moving to discourage Solar and plan to tax independent solar systems not even grid connected. For them the death spiral has begone and as more solar is used grid prices must be hiked to pay for the cost of maintaining it. When cheap, dependable electrical storage becomes available everyone will go off grid and the Grid will begin to go away.

The same scenarios are starting to play out in the southwest. My fear is the Grid could go away and with it the big nuclear plants will not be feasible. Some very interesting things are happening legislatively.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 29, 2013 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
BobN wrote:
My fear is the Grid could go away and with it the big nuclear plants will not be feasible. Some very interesting things are happening legislatively.


I don't think we'll need to worry about that for a while. My understanding is that economical energy storage has a long way to go and no guarantee of ever getting there. Am I missing something?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 30, 2013 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
Russ wrote:
BobN wrote:
My fear is the Grid could go away and with it the big nuclear plants will not be feasible. Some very interesting things are happening legislatively.


I don't think we'll need to worry about that for a while. My understanding is that economical energy storage has a long way to go and no guarantee of ever getting there. Am I missing something?


You're not missing anything. Unfortunately, entire countries are missing it.

Here's a good piece on energy storage at the scale needed:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... d-battery/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 31, 2013 6:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2013 2:24 pm
Posts: 8
Russ wrote:
Lack of education is a problem, but I don't think it's the main problem here. I'm certainly no chemist or physicist myself. The main problem is that so much misinformation and disinformation is fed to the public that we've gotten to the point where nuclear is a dirty word. As I've said before, we need to change the equation from

nuclear = dirty + dangerous to
nuclear = clean + safe

How do we do that? Since we probably can't afford to buy ABC, CBS, and NBC, we need to start a sort of "grass roots" effort. Don't just post on sites like this where you will be "preaching to the choir." Go to the renewable and anti-nuclear sites and post there. I've been posting on the Google+ renewable energy community, for example, and I can use some backup. Don't be rude, but get the facts out there. Post on all your social networks. If you don't know what to post, you can start with a link to my energy presentation slides at

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... slide=id.p


First, thanks for the slides. I'll review them later.

Getting that correct message out with a voice like a mouse squeak, though?
Consider http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/mich ... est-coast/
They're not even trying to pretend to be honest. So many lies in so few digital bits. It's a smear piece.

But that's always been the case.

Maybe buying CBS, NBC and ABC is thinking small and wrong; Is the NYT for sale yet?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 31, 2013 6:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2013 2:24 pm
Posts: 8
BobN wrote:
I fear that the time is short for getting nuclear going. Wind and solar was tolerated by big oil as it seemingly was not a threat, but the installations are starting to have impacts, so the subsidies are going away, the buy of electricity being curtailed and there is a move to start taxing solar.


Are you using 'big oil' as a catchall for Big Energy? I can see Big Coal caring; it's their pocket getting picked. To a lesser extent, Big NG, if there is such a thing. But absent solid evidence of a conspiratorial paper or money trail, I'm not sure it is useful to argue in terms of back room dealing; debate opponents will simple roll their eyes.

How did France do it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nuclear Education
PostPosted: Oct 31, 2013 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
BobPink wrote:
BobN wrote:
I fear that the time is short for getting nuclear going. Wind and solar was tolerated by big oil as it seemingly was not a threat, but the installations are starting to have impacts, so the subsidies are going away, the buy of electricity being curtailed and there is a move to start taxing solar.


Are you using 'big oil' as a catchall for Big Energy? I can see Big Coal caring; it's their pocket getting picked. To a lesser extent, Big NG, if there is such a thing. But absent solid evidence of a conspiratorial paper or money trail, I'm not sure it is useful to argue in terms of back room dealing; debate opponents will simple roll their eyes.

How did France do it?

France did it because in the 1970 energy costs were massive, france had no major fossil fuel interests, and the french government pushed massively for "clean cheap nuclear" to the educated french people. It is very easy for voters to go clean cheap nuclear when energy costs are huge, and growing.

You want a money trail to believe the following?
Quote:
"Energy lobby" is the umbrella term used to name the paid representatives of large fossil fuel (oil, gas, coal) and electric utilities corporations who attempt to influence governmental policy. So-called Big Oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total S.A., Koch Industries, Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips are amongst the largest corporations associated with the energy lobby. General Electric, Southern Co., First Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute are among the influential electric utilities corporations.[1] Both electric companies and big oil and gas companies are consistently among the ten highest-spending industrial lobbyists.[2]

Many of the most influential members of the energy lobby are among the top polluters in the United States, with Conoco, Exxon, and General Electric ranking in the top six.[7] According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency, “Companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries.”[8] The energy lobby is criticized for using its influence to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change.[9]


Imagine if refineries were regulated by the NRC? Imagine how fast exxon would get rid of the NRC?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group