"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?

“Even if you wouldn’t mind radioactive waste passing through your town…”

Greatly preferable to the toxic chemicals that pass through every day. Most of them have no shielding and are highly chemically reactive. Radioactive waste is low-volume and heavily shielded.

“How would you feel about exposing your family to a potential radiation accident?”

And what would that be, Enemies of the Earth? Radioactive materials are shielded and radiation exposure is a weak carcinogen. Smoking is far more deadly and so is driving. But the most deadly of all is living without access to energy.

“Tell President Obama, no bailout for new nuclear reactors!”

He already knows. He’s not bailing out anything. He’s providing loan guarantees that will save taxpayer dollars and facilitate the construction of new clean nuclear energy.

Let me ask you, Enemies of the Earth, who’s paying you to put this garbage up? Is it coal, oil, gas or all three? Why do you expend all this energy fighting the best form of large-scale reliable energy we have?

I have a pretty good guess why you do it, and it has nothing to do with being a friend of the Earth.

2 thoughts on “"Enemies" of the Earth and their Anti-Nuke Ads

  1. To David Archibald:I highly recommend a LFTR variant called the DMSR (denatured Molten Salt Reactor). It's basically what the ORNL molten salt team came up with in the 1970s after the government told them to stop focusing on high breeding gain, and instead look for high proliferation resistance and simple technology.A great place to start is with Dr. David LeBlanc's recent paper: https://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/download/f… and the discussion thread about it: https://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic…. This extremely versatile reactor can be used initially with no fuel reprocess (“deferred processing” really), and still would deliver a 3x fuel efficiency improvement and 6x actinide (long lived) waste improvement over LWRs. This advantage even with a once-through cycle, comes because the old fuel can stay in the reactor for 20-30 years and burn more completely: there are no solid fuel rods to degrade, the gaseous and noble-metal fission products can be removed on-line, and new top-off fuel can be added (likely annually) to compensate for reactivity loss. With reprocessing added, the fuel utilization improves to 6x, and the actinide waste drops to less than 1/1000th of that from a LWR.In the paper's conclusion, LeBlanc estimates it would take 15-20 years and cost $3B to commercialize (less than you would save on your first 3 GW of power plants, compared to LWRs).enjoy,Nathan

Leave a Reply