http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/safe-nuclear-indias-thorium-reactor/15707
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@...> wrote: > > Has anyone mentioned this?: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor > > > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of Susan > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 10:09 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: For Rick and others: Pro nuclear power > documentary > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "salyavin808" > <fintlewoodlewix@ <mailto:fintlewoodlewix@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > <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. > > >
