This is an interesting read. Has Arthur been talking to Hansen?
REH http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/jim-hansen-presses-the-climate- case-for-nuclear-energy/?src=recg From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 12:05 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Staying cool? Thank nuclear power It's difficult to measure impact. But it did figure into discussions here in Ottawa and elsewhere. And I noted that as of a few years back Suzuki was still citing the report and saying that people should go back and read it. I know because I was asked for a copy by a LEED oriented architect saying that she was at a talk given by Suzuki where he mentioned the report. It was a good experience for me to work on the report. It led me to go farther into information technology (which is mentioned in the report). Because IT is energy saving, capital saving and labour saving. An interesting area which I continue to follow. It is changing society, economy and politics. Arthur From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:37 PM To: futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] Staying cool? Thank nuclear power Arthur, that's just great. You may have done something wonderful. I don't know what was achieved by virtue of your position, or the report's significance or impact. Perhaps you could share that. I know you care about environment, which is why it seemed so out of character that you would submit such tripe, full of misleading and deceitful myths. The only true thing was that a large percentage of AC had come by nuclear energy in a heat wave in Ontario. Natalia On 25/07/2013 8:39 AM, Arthur Cordell wrote: http://www.sustainable-alternatives.ca/Canada_as_a_Conserver_Society.htm I was the project officer on the Science Council's report on Canada as a Conserver Society. So I do know and care about Canada's energy present and future. Over to you. From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:07 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Staying cool? Thank nuclear power OK Scarlett. You think about it another day. D. On 25/07/2013 7:58 AM, Arthur Cordell wrote: Interesting. But the original article noted that renewable (solar and wind) are contributing less than one percent of the energy requirements and while it is important to see how far we can go with these technologies we should keep in mind the role that current energy technologies play in meeting society's need. Yes we should change the way we use energy but that is for another discussion. arthur From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:20 PM To: futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] Staying cool? Thank nuclear power Thanks, Mike. http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium- why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/ 2/16/2012 @ 6:59PM |34,111 views The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance <http://blogs.forbes.com/people/mkat/> Marin Katusa <http://blogs.forbes.com/people/mkat/> , Contributor The Fukushima disaster reminded us all of the dangers inherent in uranium-fueled nuclear reactors. Fresh news this month about Tepco's continued struggle to contain and cool the fuel rods highlights just how energetic uranium fission reactions are and how challenging to control. Of course, that level of energy is exactly why we use nuclear energy - it is incredibly efficient as a source of power, and it creates very few emissions and carries a laudable safety record to boot. This conversation - "nuclear good but uranium dangerous" - regularly leads to a very good question: what about thorium? Thorium sits two spots left of uranium on the periodic table, in the same row or series. Elements in the same series share characteristics. With uranium and thorium, the key similarity is that both can absorb neutrons and transmute into fissile elements. That means thorium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, just like uranium. And as proponents of the underdog fuel will happily tell you, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium, is not fissile on its own (which means reactions can be stopped when necessary), produces waste products that are less radioactive, and generates more energy per ton. So why on earth are we using uranium? As you may recall, research into the mechanization of nuclear reactions was initially driven not by the desire to make energy, but by the desire to make bombs. The $2 billion Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb sparked a worldwide surge in nuclear research, most of it funded by governments embroiled in the Cold War. And here we come to it: Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, which is what you need to make a nuke. How ironic. The fact that thorium reactors could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons meant the better reactor fuel got short shrift, yet today we would love to be able to clearly differentiate a country's nuclear reactors from its weapons program. In the post-Cold War world, is there any hope for thorium? Perhaps, but don't run to your broker just yet. The Uranium Reactor The typical nuclear-fuel cycle starts with refined uranium ore, which is mostly U238 but contains 3% to 5% U235. Most naturally occurring uranium is U238, but this common isotope does not undergo fission - which is the process whereby the nucleus splits and releases tremendous amounts of energy. By contrast, the less-prevalent U235 is fissile. As such, to make reactor fuel we have to expend considerable energy enriching yellowcake, to boost its proportion of U235. Once in the reactor, U235 starts splitting and releasing high-energy neutrons. The U238 does not just sit idly by, however; it transmutes into other fissile elements. When an atom of U238 absorbs a neutron, it transmutes into short-lived U239, which rapidly decays into neptunium-239 and then into plutonium-239, that lovely, weaponizable byproduct. When the U235 content burns down to 0.3%, the fuel is spent, but it contains some very radioactive isotopes of americium, technetium, and iodine, as well as plutonium. This waste fuel is highly radioactive and the culprits - these high-mass isotopes - have half-lives of many thousands of years. As such, the waste has to be housed for up to 10,000 years, cloistered from the environment and from anyone who might want to get at the plutonium for nefarious reasons. Page 1 2 <http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium -why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/2/> 3 <http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium -why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/3/> Next <http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium -why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/2/> Page > On 24/07/2013 4:41 PM, Mike Spencer wrote: Staying cool? Thank nuclear power Margaret Wente http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/staying-cool-thank-nuclear/article 13295851/ Margaret Wente is whatchoo'd call "opinionated", ain't she? I'll believe that nuclear power is a non-insane pursuit when insurance companies begin to clamor for the privilege of offering 100% liability coverage to the industry. So far, they've exchewed the least insane option -- thorium -- initially because they *wanted* weapons-grade byproducts and subsequently because it would be expensive to design, test, redesign, test etc., a more or less open-ended project compared to just whacking together another pressurized water uranium reactor. - Mike _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
