Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nucle...

Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy

There are 268 comments on the Forbes.com story from Dec 15, 2013, titled Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy. In it, Forbes.com reports that:

The Columbia Generating Station's nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington that, together with hydroelectric power, gives Washington State the lowest carbon, cleanest energy footprint in America, delivered with the lowest cost per kWhr of any state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Forbes.com.

Since: Jul 13

Freehold, NJ

#42 Jan 9, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The 3rd and 4th generation reactors you are talking about are known as fast reactors because they use fast neutrons versus the slow (thermalized) neutrons used in todays Light Water Reactors (LWR). The primary advantage as you stated was the reactor could essentially burn up all the long lived and transuranic waste by a process called transmutation. This would result in spent fuel that would be radioactive for only about 300-500 years versus what we have today because of not reprocessing current LWR fuels for reuse. The disadvantage is the fuel needs to be highly enriched (> 90% U-235))which is not allowed by todays laws the only reactors with highly enriched fuel are used for navy nuclear propulsion reactors. Todays commercial LWRs use <10 enrichment. There are no fast reactors that have current approval by the NRC to my knowledge and unless the enrichment issue gets answered I don't think there will be. I personally support the use of Thorium reactors such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). If you are interested look it up it has been proven to work and is inherently safe which is quite different from mechanical safety systems required for gen 1 and 2 reactors and even better than the passive design safety systems for the gen 3+ and 4 reactors.
China is investing heavily in Molten-salt reactor development. The People's Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology. It was formally announced at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference in January 2011. Its ultimate target is to investigate and develop a thorium based molten salt nuclear system in about 20 years. An expected intermediate outcome of the TMSR research program is to build a 2 MW pebble bed fluoride salt cooled research reactor in 2015, and a 2 MW molten salt fueled research reactor in 2017. This would be followed by a 10 MW demonstrator reactor and a 100 MW pilot reactors. The project is spearheaded, with a start-up budget of $350 million, and has already recruited 140 PhD scientists, working full-time on thorium molten salt reactor research at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics. An expansion to 750 staff is planned by 2015.

Buy contrast the TerraPower Gen 3&4 reactor makes more plutonium from the uranium 238 for use as fuel, and so would run almost entirely on uranium 238. It would need only a small amount of uranium 235, which would function like lighter fluid getting a charcoal barbecue started. The TerraPower reactor makes more plutonium from the uranium 238 for use as fuel, and so would run almost entirely on uranium 238. It would need only a small amount of uranium 235, which would function like lighter fluid getting a charcoal barbecue started.
There are pro and cons to each side of the story, as one might expect. I think the real point here is that we as a society must stop burning FF.
I for one applaud any attempt to further development in nuclear energy, or as far as that goes, any energy source that does not require the use of FF as a source.
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#43 Jan 9, 2014
Space blues,

For comparison purposes,

Could we have a list of global deadly accidents involving hydrocarbon and byproducts FOR THE LAST WEEK?
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#44 Jan 9, 2014
BDV wrote:
Space blues,
For comparison purposes,
Could we have a list of global deadly accidents involving hydrocarbon and byproducts FOR THE LAST WEEK?
hahahaha you are so funny...
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#45 Jan 10, 2014
Thanks.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#46 Jan 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What I posted is not what you claim. You live in a pro-nuke fantasy that alters reality.
The UN report was not out yet because I checked at the UN site. There's no reason to take your word for the report until I read it.
STOP.
True, the final is not out yet, but the draft has been out for many months. It is available if you look.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#47 Jan 16, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> True, the final is not out yet, but the draft has been out for many months. It is available if you look.
You don't know the difference between a draft and a final report.

Go away. Stop talking about looking. DUH.
BDV

Columbia, SC

#48 Jan 17, 2014
So I guess that list won't be forthcoming because the list of victims of hydrocarbon powered implements FOR ONE DAY dwarfs the list of victims of nuclear energy for the now 60 years of existence?

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#49 Jan 20, 2014
BDV wrote:
So I guess that list won't be forthcoming because the list of victims of hydrocarbon powered implements FOR ONE DAY dwarfs the list of victims of nuclear energy for the now 60 years of existence?
You are correct.
Here are the world wide numbers:
Renewables kill .....~2,000,000 per year.
Fossil fuels kill .....~1,300,000 per year.
Including all the accidents etc., on average,
Nuclear Power kills ....... <300 per year.
And this accounts for the high estimates of the LNT model.
From the latest models, the actual number for nuclear is probably <5 per year, almost all of which was Chernobyl.
SpaceBlues

United States

#50 Jan 20, 2014
WOW.. these nukists make up their own stories with numbers..

No reference is needed apparently for their draft posts... LOL.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#51 Jan 20, 2014
We learn from the best!

Hard numbers:

LacMegantic 50 dead
TMI 0.5 dead

I wait (with un-baited breath) your exposition on direct victims of petroleum in any week of your choosing.
litesong

Everett, WA

#52 Jan 20, 2014
BDV wrote:
....... direct victims of petroleum.......
Prof. Mark Jacobson loves this topic:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/02/science-s...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#53 Jan 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Prof. Mark Jacobson loves this topic:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/02/science-s...
From your link:

Why Not Nuclear: 925 times more pollution per kWh than wind; risk of meltdown (1.5% of nuclear reactors to date have melted down to some degree); risk of nuclear weapons proliferation; unresolved waste issues.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/02/science-s...

P.S. Thanks.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#54 Jan 21, 2014
Of course wind is not price competitive with petroleum and gas. Not by a wide margin.
litesong

Everett, WA

#55 Jan 22, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Thank Prof. Mark Jacobson. Read about him decades ago, when no one talked about air pollution, after everyone thought, "3-way catalytic convertors solved all our pollution problems". His decades of research, & years of publications has shown the detrimental clouds of pollution we have poured down our poor unfortunate children & inner city populations...... & no one said boo, except for Prof. Mark Jacobson. His powerful development of Research Facilities & faculties to face the uncovered devastations of our technical society is a miracle.
BDV

Columbia, SC

#56 Jan 22, 2014
I mean, wind will be "competitive" with oil and gas when petroleum ppb is 250 USD dollars or so (cue Hedley Lamarr).
....
At which time one would start hearing endless whining about microclimate changes and the number of birds and bats killed by wind farms.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#57 Jan 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
WOW.. these nukists make up their own stories with numbers..
No reference is needed apparently for their draft posts... LOL.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs2...
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs3...

Chernobyl Forum, high value LNT model = 16000 (no link, sorry)
WHO Fukushima, high value LNT model = 1,800 (no link)
60 years
(16000 + 1800)/60 <= 300.
Probable numbers MUCH lower.

All you have to do is ask, even if you do it like a spoiled brat! ;)
SpaceBlues

United States

#58 Jan 28, 2014
POH.. 300 years just for the Cs 137..

Shame.
SpaceBlues

United States

#59 Jan 28, 2014
BDV

Decatur, GA

#60 Jan 28, 2014
So?
BDV

Decatur, GA

#61 Jan 28, 2014
Lambda_eff=Lambda1+Lambda2

Dose rate~ Lambda1*Lambda2

You were given "worst case scenario" . even that does not hold a candle to ACTUAL petroleum death toll - for coal is not even funny.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News We must eliminate renewable energy subsidies to... 33 min Solarman 1
News Tesla cranks up big battery in Australia 23 hr Solarman 1
News SolarNow and Eseye, Enabling IoT to Change Live... Wed Solarman 1
News 'Worst fears': States prepare to highlight the ... Wed Solarman 1
News Has Tesla's Elon Musk solved the final hurdle f... Wed Solarman 1
News Power to the people: Your electricity bill coul... Tue Solarman 1
News City opens largest solar power project in Missouri Tue Solarman 1
More from around the web