Understandably, a lot of folks in the USA are against nuclear fission energy - no matter what.
It is a no-win effort to argue the good points - since the high profile accidents like Fukushima are the only factor which is considered by many here. Low cost is no longer assured. Yet - over the next 50 years, the World will need to produce more electrical energy than it has consumed in the entire history of man before the year 2000. Solar and wind will grow fastest but will fall far short of needs and are more costly than anyone wants to admit. The USA does not need new power, so we can sound-off as being as self-righteous as we want to - but that is not the real issue. The reality is that most of the World’s future power (from about 2025 onward) – especially in China, India and a few other countries will have to come from nuclear - whether or not we in the USA object. There is no other feasible alternative other than low grade coal. Look at the current fission projects in China ! These will accelerate. The best thing which can be done at the planning level - by any of us in the West - given these hard numbers and future need - is to help Asia develop a safer and cheaper system. If we can make reactors subcritical they will be safer. If we can use unenriched fuel the risks and costs will be much lower. The French and their smart use of nuclear power should be an example to build on - but they have stagnated in this century. We need new thinking on fission and that is why bringing in LENR makes sense. It is a mistake to ignore the fact that nuclear fission power will be with us for a long time, and the best strategy to cope with that is to make it as safe as possible. No one refuses to go to France because they make most of their electrical power from fission. We must start to think globally on these issues. Jones From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com Jones— IT’S JUST HAND WAVING. Fission reactions with U and the like are nasty—hard to manage—processes. The high energy gammas and the variety of fission products are the problem not to mention the possibility of runaway reactions. There are NO silk purses that will come out of those sows ears! I DO NOT CONSIDER THERE IS ANY FUTURE IN HYBRED FISSION USING ANYTHING HEAVIER THAN NI OR FE. As was noted on E-Cat World recently, even NAVSEA has seen the light and discretely identified LENR as a new disruptive technology. I believe they have the facts. And the light they are seeing is not new for them. Bob Cook From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 6:43:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Catalyzed Hot Fission - A promising hybridorjust hand-waving? Speaking of neutron identity in the context of Widom/Larsen (ultra low momentum neutron) or in the context of Meulenberg dense hydrogen (DDL) – which may be identical if the truth be known… ;-} … there is the possibility that an advanced and small fission design could benefit greatly from an “alternative neutron”. That is the important point. Perhaps this outcome is a wishful thinking interpretation of the Didyk and Wisniewski paper- since it is not clear what they are talking about with palladium. BTW Peter Hagelstein mentions their paper in “Anomalies in Fracture Experiments, and Energy Exchange Between Vibrations and Nuclei.” Hagelstein and Chaudhary - Meccanica 50, no. 5 (July 15, 2014): 1189–1203, so the information did not go uncommented wrt LENR. In short, all that one needs to bring nuclear fission into a new paradigm of cost effectiveness is to include an extra DDL into the picture below (assuming dense hydrogen is similar enough to a neutron to induce fission in the heavy target. A chain reaction is far easier to engineer with an extra avenue of propagation (4:1 instead of 3:1).
