Now wait, one argument by Roger Sowell:
“No island with 1 million population (nominal) has a nuclear power plant, instead they use diesel or similar and pay 25 to 30 cents for their power. Fact.”
So let’s do some numbers. Assume every inhabitant uses 2 MWh a year, that’s a bit north of German consumption; less than American consumption. Let’s further assume that electricity, as in Germany, is consumed equally by public sector, industry, and private households, so we can take the 1 million inhabitants times 2 MWh times 3 and get a realistic annual consumption, which is
6 TWh.
Now, how much electricity does a typical 1 GW nuclear plant produce in a year.
8.760 TWh.
That’s not a bad fit.
Now, why would the island with 1 million inhabitants not want to depend on ONE SINGLE POWER PLANT.
Do I have to continue from here?
Roger, your arguments might impress a dumb judge, but really, this is getting ridiculous quick.
juan slayton
August 4, 2013 6:13 am
CodeTech: . Our bodies have a level of, not only tolerance to radioactivity but indeed a minimum requirement.
Hmmm. Can you back that up?
Lars P.
August 4, 2013 6:32 am
CodeTech says:
August 4, 2013 at 5:39 am The anti-nuke people lie to us, every time they open their mouths. Radioactivity is like any other poison: it’s the dose that matters. Grand Central Station in NYC has higher radioactivity levels due to the natural stone in its construction than is legally allowed in a nuclear facility. Sitting in downtown Banff, my radioactivity meter showed higher than in the work area where I worked. Bananas have measurable levels of radioactivity.
Code, it took the people some time to realise that a completely sterile environment is not healthier, that children & humans need to get in contact with some bacteria and this is healthy. Healthier then living under a sterile tent.
Similarly the case for radiation, a zero level radiation is not healthier, as our cells self repairing mechanisms go to sleep. I understand a certain small dosis of radiation is natural, normal and even improves our cells health.
But people are indeed being taught that zero level is desirable and there is a linear relationship between radiation and cancer, what has not been observed.
With something one cannot see or hear or feel in any way with our senses it is easy to make people crazy.
Radiation hormesis is no new news, it has been observed since the beginning, but was not really studied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
however the study of no-radiation effect has barely started. I guess there would need another 10-15 years to get some reasonable results.
CodeTech
August 4, 2013 6:34 am
juan slayton says:
Hmmm. Can you back that up?
First read this: http://www.rerowland.com/BodyActivity.htm
Second, consider that the body only generates an active defense against threats that have occurred. Without some level of damage for cells to learn how to repair, ANY level of exposure would be catastrophic.
CodeTech
August 4, 2013 6:38 am
Thanks Lars, your explanation was more detailed 🙂
My skepticism of nuclear issues was fueled years ago after I realized the hippies running my high school didn’t have a freaking clue about anything that didn’t involve peace, love, harmony, and nature.
My skepticism of AGW is relatively recent, but I recognize the same disinformation by, mostly, the same people.
Doug Huffman
August 4, 2013 6:53 am
juan slayton says: August 4, 2013 at 6:13 am “CodeTech: . Our bodies have a level of, not only tolerance to radioactivity but indeed a minimum requirement.” “Hmmm. Can you back that up?”
Yes, that is essential to the Radiation Hormesis argument against the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis.
Doug Huffman
August 4, 2013 6:59 am
Without looking at CodeTech’s Wikipedia extensive list of known reactors, did it include Gaia’s hint to the goodness of nuclear reactors, the Gabon Oklo Fossil Reactors? If Mother Nature does it, then it must be OK.
Lars P.
August 4, 2013 7:18 am
Can somebody point to any studies regarding salinity of the oceans?
I was wondering if the cooling of the last 5-10-20 million years could be related also to decreased salinity and the increased albedo due to water freezing at a higher temperature?
When looking at the geological scale temperature reconstructions one can see a continuous trend for cooling in the last 10 million of years, which ended in the periodic ice ages.
Whereas I understand that one of the reasons of how current climate formed is due to the forming of the circumpolar current around Antarctica, the closing of the istm of Panama, I was wondring what role did changed salinity play to it.
Accidentally I found this intriguing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
“The Mediterranean basin also sequestered below its seabed a significant percentage of the salt from Earth’s oceans; this decreased the average salinity of the world ocean and raised its freezing point.”
Why it decreased the salinity of the world ocean is explained also there:
“The amount of Messinian salts is larger than 4·1018 kg (Ryan, 2008, Sedimentology), exceeding by a factor of 50 the amount of salt normally contained in the Mediterranean waters. This suggests either a succession of desiccations or a long period of hypersalinity during which incoming water from the Atlantic Ocean was evaporated with the level of the Mediterranean brine being similar to that of the Atlantic”
Now searching for how the freezing of salt water is influenced by salinity I found this calculator: http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2ofreezecalc.html
It gives for 100 kPa and 35 PSU a value of -1.998°C so about -2 °C freezing poin
For a slighly higher salinity of 45 PSU the value is -2.583°C and at 55 PSU -3.192°C
So these variations do indeed modify a litle the freezing point. Whereas these are not huge variations it may have had some influence on the global climate, when one thinks that the average temperature of the oceans should be around 4°C
My question would be how constant was the salinity of the seas? Are there proxy values of it, have there been any speculations about the influence of the salinity of the oceans and the global climate?
Also in view of the onset to glaciations about 3 million years ago, was wondering if with increasing albedo due to faster freezing of the salt water another threshold was reached which enabled the start of the glaciations.
RACookPE1978
Editor
August 4, 2013 8:26 am
DirkH says:
August 4, 2013 at 6:12 am
(replying to Roger Sowell)
Now wait, one argument by Roger Sowell:
“No island with 1 million population (nominal) has a nuclear power plant, instead they use diesel or similar and pay 25 to 30 cents for their power. Fact.”
So let’s do some numbers. Assume every inhabitant uses 2 MWh a year, that’s a bit north of German consumption; less than American consumption. Let’s further assume that electricity, as in Germany, is consumed equally by public sector, industry, and private households, so we can take the 1 million inhabitants times 2 MWh times 3 and get a realistic annual consumption, which is
6 TWh.
Now, how much electricity does a typical 1 GW nuclear plant produce in a year.
8.760 TWh.
That’s not a bad fit.
Now, why would the island with 1 million inhabitants not want to depend on ONE SINGLE POWER PLANT.
Do I have to continue from here?
Roger, your arguments might impress a dumb judge, but really, this is getting ridiculous quick.
But wait, it even worse than that. 8<)
Our electric power grid – on islands and on the mainlands – has grown up gradually and irregularly from 1910 to 1930. Many gaps and non-electrified areas everywhere. Only cities at first, and everywhere including islands, the country getting power last. Then, in most areas in the civilized world very rapidly and uniformly only after WWII.
Nuclear plants started in the very highly industrial regions only in the 1960's and 70's until the enviro's killed their growth in early 1970 by INCREASING their costs and delaying approval.
(Quite a bit of these schedule and cost growth issues were due to errors in design methods and non-standardization that the industry did to itself.)
BUT – The primary and most important nuclear cost growth was in the deliberate DELAYS caused by and for and with the cooperation of the anti-nuclear industry. Every day delay in the delivery of a nuclear power plant – that final moment when it can start delivering low-cost power costs 7 to 8 percent MORE in annual interest and insurance costs THAT ARE IRRECOVERABLE. (But are profitable to the banking and insurance and regulatory and environmental and legal industries!)
Projects are cancelled not because they are unsafe or uneconomical. They are cancelled because they CANNOT BECOME PROFITABLE IN A SHORT ENOUGH TIME FRAME. And the nuclear delays are (now) entirely caused by the enviro and legal industry.
/rant about lawyers deliberately killing people and their economic foundations for life, liberty in the lawyers' pursuit of the lawyers' happiness
Back to island electric systems.
Since they grew up gradually, and since NO power system can ever got "suddenly" and immediately and magically up to its present size, there is no way between 1970 (when big/medium/small nukes could first be "exported" or built on islands) and today. The island electric power systems HAD to begin with small plants (fossil and oil) of course, then gradually getting bigger plants as bigger plants (1) could be built and (2) were needed to support a larger grid. The DEMAND for electric power was also gradually growing: should some island START by immediately building that 6 TerraWatt power plant when the entire demand (back in 1970) was only 1/5 of today's demand?????
The US power plants are built the same way: Look at today's power plant in Crist 1-2-3-4-5-6 in Pennsacola FL: Started building the plant in the late 40's with a single 45 MegaWatt turbine. Added a second 45 MegaWatt trubine. Added a pair of 100 Meg turbines (Crist 3 & 4). Added Crist 5. Added Crist 6 – by then, turbines were 400+ Megawatts. Did they "remove" the older smaller turbines? No. Did they stop running the older smaller turbines? Only after they built the much larger 600 + Megawatt Crist 7 plant. All of these "new" turbines were added to the end of the original building, and all use the original electric transfer yard and the "new" power transmission towers also gradually added over the years.
An island's power system is going to have grown the same way as Pennsacola's power plant grew. Slowly. By adding small turbines just before they are needed. And small nukes were not then available – except for Antarctica's "advertisement" power plant.
By the way, when did Roger expect that isolated island of his to build the TerraWatt-capable transmission system? Before they needed that level of electric power transmission and control and transformers and switchyards and high-volt towers and low-volt poles wires, or only when they finally needed it?
Today, I can buy and build and start using a two-gas-turbine-plus-one-heat-recovery-turbine plant delivering 600 Megawatts of power in two years from bulldozer to delivery of first power. Two years from now, Roger will still be preventing me from delivering the first set of PAPERS requesting permission to begin public hearings taht will allow the public discussion of the first permitting procedures for that first nuke plant………
SAMURAI
August 4, 2013 8:33 am
On the Liquid Fuoride Thorium Reactor (LFTRs) front….
Over the last year, I’ve e-mailed many US Congressmen and Senators providing them with a general overview of LFTR technology, its advantages over conventional nukes and why it will be the energy of the future.
I received many blah- blah “thank you” auto replies from most Congressmen, however, Seantor Rand Paul and his staff expressed genuine interest and I’ve been in continual correspondence with them on LFTRs.
i recenlty recieved a personal letter from Senator Paul thanking me for my thoughts on LFTRs along with a pledge that his staff will work on drafting legislation necessary to allow LFTR development in the US, which I thought was pretty cool.
If there are any WUWT readers that also want to see LFTR development in the US, please send Senator Paul an e-mail as he seems to be the only Congressmen that’s really supporting LFTRs (probably because he’s one of the few politicians in Washington with enough intelligence to understand the basic science…)
BTW, it was excellent news that Bill Gates’ nuclear power company announced a few weeks ago that they’ll also be evaluating LFTRs, in addition to their Traveling Wave Reactors (TWRs), which are their current priority. I think TWRs is a dead-end technology because it still requires high pressure water to operate, which is intrinsically dangerous, expensive, inefficient and will have HUGE decommission costs compared to LFTRs.
In my opinion, if Bill Gates is able to develop/patent a cheap and safe LFTR design, his Nuclear power company has the chance to be even bigger than Microsoft; providing he can develop/patent LFTRs before the Chinese do, which doesn’t seem likely….
More insults and no substantive arguments. My seven facts remain unrefuted.
“Code Tech” calls me childish. Well, now THERE’s a winning argument. Hiding behind a pseudonym? Priceless.
Why do lawyers bring lawsuits against nuclear power plants? Mostly it is to force the builder to comply with the law. If it takes longer, then build it right the first time.
I keep hoping that someday, a valid argument supported by verifiable facts is made to justify building nuclear power plants.
The fact is, I have never represented any entity in a nuclear power matter. There are plenty of lawyers that do. I cheer them on.
And I really pity Hoffer, who sadly cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion.
Justthinkin
August 4, 2013 8:53 am
Roger Sowell says..”Our children and grandchildren will rightfully ask: You had solar, wind, ocean currents, and hot ocean surface water in the tropics, so why did your generation build all those toxic and deadly nuclear power plants? ”
Well. I have no idea about yours,but mine(being privately schooled) are asking why are we destroying the enviroment by building wind mills that do not work,require a constant back-up system to stop fluctuations/brown out/black outs,using evil (NOT) CO2 generating fuels,(you see,my kids know CO2 is a plant food,not a poison)destroying vast pristine grass/prarier/desert areas with mirrors that are all ready operating at maybe 5% due to dust,dirt,and weeds.Not to mention the mining and destruction of land to get the rare minerals needed for a useless mirror.
And many,many more of them are starting to ask the same things.
Armagh Observatory
August 4, 2013 8:56 am
Probably a little late in the day to raise this point now, but the taxes imposed in the American colonies by the UK Government, were actually 80% less than those imposed on tax payers back in the United Kingdom…
In other words, the colonists didn’t have the bitching rights they claimed to have. Hope it was worth it!
Ha ha, we’ve got the Queen, the Beatles, Kate Middleton (and her sister Pippa) and you don’t!
😉
“By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN”
Not one of these people have a science degree – not that you can’t learn some science outside of having a degree, but there’s nothing like screwing up an experiment or getting unexpected results in an experiment (sometimes because you screwed up) that really teaches science.
Annie
August 4, 2013 9:17 am
If Roger Sowell thinks this discussion is ‘fun’ then perhaps he should be treated as a troll and just ignored from now on.
James Schrumpf
August 4, 2013 9:28 am
Armagh Observatory says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:56 am
Ha ha, we’ve got the Queen, the Beatles, Kate Middleton (and her sister Pippa) and you don’t!
😉
Yeah, well, you’ve got English summers, and we don’t! So there!!!
Roger Sowell;
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
More insults and no substantive arguments. My seven facts remain unrefuted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROFLMAO
DirkH
August 4, 2013 9:44 am
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
“I keep hoping that someday, a valid argument supported by verifiable facts is made to justify building nuclear power plants.”
You could look at the electricity rationing post Fukushima in Japan if you really cared to. But you would probably argue that it’s the Japanese own fault to live on an Island without abundant fossil fuels. Or whatever you would come up with.
Japan is an Island BTW. You were wondering why no Island with 1 million inhabitants ever built a nuke. I showed your argument to be a cheap trick. Now here’s an Island with 100 million inhabitants, and they have nukes. do they have a right to do that, Roger?
Ric Werme says:
August 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Back on Neverwet – careful, a little friction can be a big help to control a shovelful of snow and keep it from spilling out. OTOH, wet snow sticking to a shovel is a big pain.
===========================================================================
I paid extra for an ergonomic shovel. It’s still a chore to shovel but at least my back feels less like it’s shaped like an ergonomic handle when I’m done. I leave it outside by the backdoor so it’s less likely to melt snow, and thus make it stick. If it’s wet snow I spray the blade with silicon. It usually doesn’t last through the whole job but it helps initially.
PS I lived in NH for 3 years back in the early ’80’s. Nashua had it’s earliest snowfall on record the 6 months I was there. I think it was 3 or 6 inches on October 3rd…if I remember correctly.
beng
August 4, 2013 9:48 am
****
markx says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:44 pm Roger Sowell says:August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“….The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up*. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal**. …
Thanks Roger. Here you have neatly encapsulated two major problems:
1. * Why nuclear power stations cost so much.
2. ** One of the primary problems with modern civilization.
I’d also suggest you are as close-minded as anyone who has posted here.
****
I wasn’t going to get into the mix, but that disclosure by Sowell pushed me past the tipping point. Disgusting.
PS I lived in NH for 3 years back in the early ’80′s. Nashua had it’s earliest snowfall on record the 6 months I was there. I think it was 3 or 6 inches on October 3rd…if I remember correctly.
======================================================================
Well, I didn’t remember correctly. It was 1″ October 10, 1979. They call it the “earliest measurable snowfall”.
I meant to include this link, a list of all known nuclear reactors on the planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
Now wait, one argument by Roger Sowell:
“No island with 1 million population (nominal) has a nuclear power plant, instead they use diesel or similar and pay 25 to 30 cents for their power. Fact.”
So let’s do some numbers. Assume every inhabitant uses 2 MWh a year, that’s a bit north of German consumption; less than American consumption. Let’s further assume that electricity, as in Germany, is consumed equally by public sector, industry, and private households, so we can take the 1 million inhabitants times 2 MWh times 3 and get a realistic annual consumption, which is
6 TWh.
Now, how much electricity does a typical 1 GW nuclear plant produce in a year.
8.760 TWh.
That’s not a bad fit.
Now, why would the island with 1 million inhabitants not want to depend on ONE SINGLE POWER PLANT.
Do I have to continue from here?
Roger, your arguments might impress a dumb judge, but really, this is getting ridiculous quick.
CodeTech: . Our bodies have a level of, not only tolerance to radioactivity but indeed a minimum requirement.
Hmmm. Can you back that up?
CodeTech says:
August 4, 2013 at 5:39 am
The anti-nuke people lie to us, every time they open their mouths. Radioactivity is like any other poison: it’s the dose that matters. Grand Central Station in NYC has higher radioactivity levels due to the natural stone in its construction than is legally allowed in a nuclear facility. Sitting in downtown Banff, my radioactivity meter showed higher than in the work area where I worked. Bananas have measurable levels of radioactivity.
Code, it took the people some time to realise that a completely sterile environment is not healthier, that children & humans need to get in contact with some bacteria and this is healthy. Healthier then living under a sterile tent.
Similarly the case for radiation, a zero level radiation is not healthier, as our cells self repairing mechanisms go to sleep. I understand a certain small dosis of radiation is natural, normal and even improves our cells health.
But people are indeed being taught that zero level is desirable and there is a linear relationship between radiation and cancer, what has not been observed.
With something one cannot see or hear or feel in any way with our senses it is easy to make people crazy.
Radiation hormesis is no new news, it has been observed since the beginning, but was not really studied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
however the study of no-radiation effect has barely started. I guess there would need another 10-15 years to get some reasonable results.
juan slayton says:
First read this: http://www.rerowland.com/BodyActivity.htm
Second, consider that the body only generates an active defense against threats that have occurred. Without some level of damage for cells to learn how to repair, ANY level of exposure would be catastrophic.
Thanks Lars, your explanation was more detailed 🙂
My skepticism of nuclear issues was fueled years ago after I realized the hippies running my high school didn’t have a freaking clue about anything that didn’t involve peace, love, harmony, and nature.
My skepticism of AGW is relatively recent, but I recognize the same disinformation by, mostly, the same people.
juan slayton says: August 4, 2013 at 6:13 am “CodeTech: . Our bodies have a level of, not only tolerance to radioactivity but indeed a minimum requirement.” “Hmmm. Can you back that up?”
Yes, that is essential to the Radiation Hormesis argument against the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis.
Without looking at CodeTech’s Wikipedia extensive list of known reactors, did it include Gaia’s hint to the goodness of nuclear reactors, the Gabon Oklo Fossil Reactors? If Mother Nature does it, then it must be OK.
Can somebody point to any studies regarding salinity of the oceans?
I was wondering if the cooling of the last 5-10-20 million years could be related also to decreased salinity and the increased albedo due to water freezing at a higher temperature?
When looking at the geological scale temperature reconstructions one can see a continuous trend for cooling in the last 10 million of years, which ended in the periodic ice ages.
Whereas I understand that one of the reasons of how current climate formed is due to the forming of the circumpolar current around Antarctica, the closing of the istm of Panama, I was wondring what role did changed salinity play to it.
Accidentally I found this intriguing article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
“The Mediterranean basin also sequestered below its seabed a significant percentage of the salt from Earth’s oceans; this decreased the average salinity of the world ocean and raised its freezing point.”
Why it decreased the salinity of the world ocean is explained also there:
“The amount of Messinian salts is larger than 4·1018 kg (Ryan, 2008, Sedimentology), exceeding by a factor of 50 the amount of salt normally contained in the Mediterranean waters. This suggests either a succession of desiccations or a long period of hypersalinity during which incoming water from the Atlantic Ocean was evaporated with the level of the Mediterranean brine being similar to that of the Atlantic”
Now searching for how the freezing of salt water is influenced by salinity I found this calculator:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2ofreezecalc.html
It gives for 100 kPa and 35 PSU a value of -1.998°C so about -2 °C freezing poin
For a slighly higher salinity of 45 PSU the value is -2.583°C and at 55 PSU -3.192°C
So these variations do indeed modify a litle the freezing point. Whereas these are not huge variations it may have had some influence on the global climate, when one thinks that the average temperature of the oceans should be around 4°C
My question would be how constant was the salinity of the seas? Are there proxy values of it, have there been any speculations about the influence of the salinity of the oceans and the global climate?
Also in view of the onset to glaciations about 3 million years ago, was wondering if with increasing albedo due to faster freezing of the salt water another threshold was reached which enabled the start of the glaciations.
DirkH says:
August 4, 2013 at 6:12 am
(replying to Roger Sowell)
But wait, it even worse than that. 8<)
Our electric power grid – on islands and on the mainlands – has grown up gradually and irregularly from 1910 to 1930. Many gaps and non-electrified areas everywhere. Only cities at first, and everywhere including islands, the country getting power last. Then, in most areas in the civilized world very rapidly and uniformly only after WWII.
Nuclear plants started in the very highly industrial regions only in the 1960's and 70's until the enviro's killed their growth in early 1970 by INCREASING their costs and delaying approval.
(Quite a bit of these schedule and cost growth issues were due to errors in design methods and non-standardization that the industry did to itself.)
BUT – The primary and most important nuclear cost growth was in the deliberate DELAYS caused by and for and with the cooperation of the anti-nuclear industry. Every day delay in the delivery of a nuclear power plant – that final moment when it can start delivering low-cost power costs 7 to 8 percent MORE in annual interest and insurance costs THAT ARE IRRECOVERABLE. (But are profitable to the banking and insurance and regulatory and environmental and legal industries!)
Projects are cancelled not because they are unsafe or uneconomical. They are cancelled because they CANNOT BECOME PROFITABLE IN A SHORT ENOUGH TIME FRAME. And the nuclear delays are (now) entirely caused by the enviro and legal industry.
/rant about lawyers deliberately killing people and their economic foundations for life, liberty in the lawyers' pursuit of the lawyers' happiness
Back to island electric systems.
Since they grew up gradually, and since NO power system can ever got "suddenly" and immediately and magically up to its present size, there is no way between 1970 (when big/medium/small nukes could first be "exported" or built on islands) and today. The island electric power systems HAD to begin with small plants (fossil and oil) of course, then gradually getting bigger plants as bigger plants (1) could be built and (2) were needed to support a larger grid. The DEMAND for electric power was also gradually growing: should some island START by immediately building that 6 TerraWatt power plant when the entire demand (back in 1970) was only 1/5 of today's demand?????
The US power plants are built the same way: Look at today's power plant in Crist 1-2-3-4-5-6 in Pennsacola FL: Started building the plant in the late 40's with a single 45 MegaWatt turbine. Added a second 45 MegaWatt trubine. Added a pair of 100 Meg turbines (Crist 3 & 4). Added Crist 5. Added Crist 6 – by then, turbines were 400+ Megawatts. Did they "remove" the older smaller turbines? No. Did they stop running the older smaller turbines? Only after they built the much larger 600 + Megawatt Crist 7 plant. All of these "new" turbines were added to the end of the original building, and all use the original electric transfer yard and the "new" power transmission towers also gradually added over the years.
An island's power system is going to have grown the same way as Pennsacola's power plant grew. Slowly. By adding small turbines just before they are needed. And small nukes were not then available – except for Antarctica's "advertisement" power plant.
By the way, when did Roger expect that isolated island of his to build the TerraWatt-capable transmission system? Before they needed that level of electric power transmission and control and transformers and switchyards and high-volt towers and low-volt poles wires, or only when they finally needed it?
Today, I can buy and build and start using a two-gas-turbine-plus-one-heat-recovery-turbine plant delivering 600 Megawatts of power in two years from bulldozer to delivery of first power. Two years from now, Roger will still be preventing me from delivering the first set of PAPERS requesting permission to begin public hearings taht will allow the public discussion of the first permitting procedures for that first nuke plant………
On the Liquid Fuoride Thorium Reactor (LFTRs) front….
Over the last year, I’ve e-mailed many US Congressmen and Senators providing them with a general overview of LFTR technology, its advantages over conventional nukes and why it will be the energy of the future.
I received many blah- blah “thank you” auto replies from most Congressmen, however, Seantor Rand Paul and his staff expressed genuine interest and I’ve been in continual correspondence with them on LFTRs.
i recenlty recieved a personal letter from Senator Paul thanking me for my thoughts on LFTRs along with a pledge that his staff will work on drafting legislation necessary to allow LFTR development in the US, which I thought was pretty cool.
If there are any WUWT readers that also want to see LFTR development in the US, please send Senator Paul an e-mail as he seems to be the only Congressmen that’s really supporting LFTRs (probably because he’s one of the few politicians in Washington with enough intelligence to understand the basic science…)
BTW, it was excellent news that Bill Gates’ nuclear power company announced a few weeks ago that they’ll also be evaluating LFTRs, in addition to their Traveling Wave Reactors (TWRs), which are their current priority. I think TWRs is a dead-end technology because it still requires high pressure water to operate, which is intrinsically dangerous, expensive, inefficient and will have HUGE decommission costs compared to LFTRs.
In my opinion, if Bill Gates is able to develop/patent a cheap and safe LFTR design, his Nuclear power company has the chance to be even bigger than Microsoft; providing he can develop/patent LFTRs before the Chinese do, which doesn’t seem likely….
CBC is once again offering its taxpayer funded columns to Monbiot…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/08/02/f-sunday-edition-george-monbiot-environment.html
Time to defund CBC!
More insults and no substantive arguments. My seven facts remain unrefuted.
“Code Tech” calls me childish. Well, now THERE’s a winning argument. Hiding behind a pseudonym? Priceless.
Why do lawyers bring lawsuits against nuclear power plants? Mostly it is to force the builder to comply with the law. If it takes longer, then build it right the first time.
I keep hoping that someday, a valid argument supported by verifiable facts is made to justify building nuclear power plants.
The fact is, I have never represented any entity in a nuclear power matter. There are plenty of lawyers that do. I cheer them on.
And I really pity Hoffer, who sadly cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion.
Roger Sowell says..”Our children and grandchildren will rightfully ask: You had solar, wind, ocean currents, and hot ocean surface water in the tropics, so why did your generation build all those toxic and deadly nuclear power plants? ”
Well. I have no idea about yours,but mine(being privately schooled) are asking why are we destroying the enviroment by building wind mills that do not work,require a constant back-up system to stop fluctuations/brown out/black outs,using evil (NOT) CO2 generating fuels,(you see,my kids know CO2 is a plant food,not a poison)destroying vast pristine grass/prarier/desert areas with mirrors that are all ready operating at maybe 5% due to dust,dirt,and weeds.Not to mention the mining and destruction of land to get the rare minerals needed for a useless mirror.
And many,many more of them are starting to ask the same things.
Probably a little late in the day to raise this point now, but the taxes imposed in the American colonies by the UK Government, were actually 80% less than those imposed on tax payers back in the United Kingdom…
In other words, the colonists didn’t have the bitching rights they claimed to have. Hope it was worth it!
Ha ha, we’ve got the Queen, the Beatles, Kate Middleton (and her sister Pippa) and you don’t!
😉
Long cold Jan-Feb 2014:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Winter-2013-2014-is-coming-4786004.S.259614043
“By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN”
Not one of these people have a science degree – not that you can’t learn some science outside of having a degree, but there’s nothing like screwing up an experiment or getting unexpected results in an experiment (sometimes because you screwed up) that really teaches science.
If Roger Sowell thinks this discussion is ‘fun’ then perhaps he should be treated as a troll and just ignored from now on.
Yeah, well, you’ve got English summers, and we don’t! So there!!!
Roger Sowell;
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
More insults and no substantive arguments. My seven facts remain unrefuted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROFLMAO
Roger Sowell says:
August 4, 2013 at 8:50 am
“I keep hoping that someday, a valid argument supported by verifiable facts is made to justify building nuclear power plants.”
You could look at the electricity rationing post Fukushima in Japan if you really cared to. But you would probably argue that it’s the Japanese own fault to live on an Island without abundant fossil fuels. Or whatever you would come up with.
Japan is an Island BTW. You were wondering why no Island with 1 million inhabitants ever built a nuke. I showed your argument to be a cheap trick. Now here’s an Island with 100 million inhabitants, and they have nukes. do they have a right to do that, Roger?
===========================================================================
I paid extra for an ergonomic shovel. It’s still a chore to shovel but at least my back feels less like it’s shaped like an ergonomic handle when I’m done. I leave it outside by the backdoor so it’s less likely to melt snow, and thus make it stick. If it’s wet snow I spray the blade with silicon. It usually doesn’t last through the whole job but it helps initially.
PS I lived in NH for 3 years back in the early ’80’s. Nashua had it’s earliest snowfall on record the 6 months I was there. I think it was 3 or 6 inches on October 3rd…if I remember correctly.
****
markx says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Roger Sowell says:August 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“….The attorneys including myself will see to it that US new nuclear power plants either don’t get built, or are delayed so long that their owners give up*. We have far more attorneys now than in the 70s, and far more legal tools at our disposal**. …
Thanks Roger. Here you have neatly encapsulated two major problems:
1. * Why nuclear power stations cost so much.
2. ** One of the primary problems with modern civilization.
I’d also suggest you are as close-minded as anyone who has posted here.
****
I wasn’t going to get into the mix, but that disclosure by Sowell pushed me past the tipping point. Disgusting.
DR says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of ‘Big Oil’ etc. funding greenie groups?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jo Nova might. You can start here: Does Climate Money matter? Is a monopoly good for a market?
======================================================================
Well, I didn’t remember correctly. It was 1″ October 10, 1979. They call it the “earliest measurable snowfall”.