Thorium - interesting - will follow this.
--- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/safe-nuclear-indias-thorium-reactor/15707
>
> --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone mentioned this?:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > On Behalf Of Susan
> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:09 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Rick and others: Pro nuclear power
> > documentary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected]
> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "salyavin808"
> > <fintlewoodlewix@ <mailto:fintlewoodlewix@> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected]
> > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just saw Pandora's Promise, by Robert Stone, an environmentalist who
> > has in the past been active in anti-nuclear energy protests. He got
> > convinced otherwise and has made this docu. It features info and also
> > interviews with several environmentalists who have educated themselves and
> > changed their minds about nuclear energy. Stuart Brand (Whole Earth
> > catalogue) is one and so is Mark Lynas, who wrote the book Six Degrees in
> > 2007. I have mentioned that book here several times - terrific and
> > accessible read about climate change. Lynas was anti nuclear for years - and
> > now changed his mind. A worthwhile movie to see - and while I am not at all
> > an expert on nuclear power, it made a really good case for the positives. It
> > also seems that there is a type of nuclear power (IFR) that produces waste
> > that is recyclable by the nuclear plant itself. The safeguards on these are
> > also incredible.
> > >
> > >
> > > These pro nuclear environmentalists make me laugh, I think they
> > > come from a place where we absolutely *have* to keep consuming
> > > power at the insane rate we have for the last hundred years and
> > > that cutting back on consumption isn't a plausible option.
> >
> > The docu mentions this problem. It seems that the pro-nuclear
> > environmentalists have become rather practical. First, they don't believe
> > that cutting back is an option - that to think that our own Western
> > populations will cut back is a pipe dream. It might be smart and the right
> > thing to do, but it won't happen. And seond, for us to expect the developing
> > nations to not have what we have - cars, unlimited energy - it not "fair"
> > and also is not happening. China and India and Brazil are moving full steam
> > ahead and will use whatever energy source is around. Second, they feel that
> > given that our demands for energy will not be dropping, we cannot just count
> > on water, wind and solar sources. Anything that helps is good, but those
> > systems simply will not solve the problem anytime soon. We are running out
> > of time, and to wait for other types of energy is wishful thinking for now.
> > >
> > > The sad fact about nuclear power is that we don't have enough
> > > uranium on this planet to outlast the coal supply should we
> > > switch wholesale and build more reactors.
> > >
> > > Then there's terrorism, if al queda had been smart they would have
> > > flown the 9/11 planes into a nuclear reactor (but don't give them
> > > ideas) and then there is the black market in dirty plutonium, so
> > > simple to make a dirty bomb, drive it into a major city and....
> > > It's just bound to happen sooner or later.
> > >
> > > But the real disaster is waste, I have heard of these fast breeder
> > > reactors but I'm not even sure they have been demonstrated to work very
> > well and they do still create a small amount of waste and it
> > > becomes much more toxic than the 11,000,000 barrels of stuff we
> > > have lying around the UK waiting to be buried.
> >
> > I don't know, but in the docu they said that these reactors had been around
> > since the late 40's. A decision was made at that time by Rickover (sp?) to
> > go with the other incredibly more polluting systems in building power plants
> > (and submarines). Scientists of today seem pretty certain that the waste is
> > mostly recyclable and the plants are very very safe compared to the current
> > style. Whether that waste is more polluting, I have no idea and it was not
> > addressed in the film.....At the end of this movie, there were questions and
> > answers with Robert Stone. As he was walking out, a 60ish year old man came
> > up and congratulated him on a good job, mentioned that he himself had spent
> > 40 years in the nuclear power industry (I think an engineer), and that there
> > were risks not mentioned in the film. He felt that nuclear (the fast
> > breeder) was our only option at this time in history and given the pace of
> > global climate change and the energy demands of our planet. However, he did
> > feel we should also be having a more thorough conversation about the risks
> > (he did not elaborate on them - wish he had).
> > >
> > > And that is what will happen, just brush it all under the carpet
> > > and let mankind of the future deal with it. I read that British Nuclear
> > Fuels put a few million in the bank hoping that some bright
> > > spark in some wiser future will know how to deal with it. Until
> > > then it's being buried in places like this:
> > >
> > > http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/24/nuclear-waste-storage
> > >
> > > Saw a chilling documentary about this place. Just what do you put
> > > on the door? Imagine if our Neanderthal predecessors had been
> > > burying dangerous waste since they first came to Europe, it would
> > > still be as dangerous as the day they sealed it up. Do our descendants
> > > deserve to have to deal with our stupidity just so we can keep our
> > > 24/7 lifestyle? They'll be kicking us for not going solar, which is
> > > the *only* serious choice.
> >
> > No our descendants do not deserve this. But there won't be descendants
> > unless we change our demand for and source of energy. Demand is not going
> > away. Solar and wind and water won't manage the problem until it is way too
> > late.
> >
> > Many of the same big environmentalists who have switched and are now pro
> > nuclear are also now pro GMO food. Same idea: the world is going to run out
> > food, and the way we raise food and animals for slaughter is incredibly
> > polluting. We need to raise lots of food using less land and fewer
> > chemicals. GMO's do that. I hate that idea. It feels like a terrible
> > compromise to say that while we see the problems in nuclear or GMO food, we
> > must go for a lesser evil or our planet is cooked.
> >
> > I am on the fence with both issues, but my mind is open to the possibility
> > that huge compromises may need to be made. I believe we are on the brink of
> > disaster with global climate change, and it might already be too late for
> > anything to make a difference. The window of opportunity might be gone.
> > Maybe chaos and then a collapse of most civilizations will bring things to a
> > halt and that is the way to go. I just don't know. But we have major
> > difficulties ahead and continuing to think that we all have to reduce our
> > energy demands and eat organic is ignoring reality.
> > >
> >
>
