tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post2572648306856871813..comments2024-03-27T06:42:31.956+00:00Comments on Mark Brinkley (aka House 2.0): Nuclear 2.0 ReviewMark Brinkleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-15975389814146411462013-07-27T11:30:08.397+01:002013-07-27T11:30:08.397+01:00But I still think it's just what big biz wants...But I still think it's just what big biz wants, voices coming round to endorsing nuclear because of future hopes that one day Nuclear 2.0 may solve the lethal waste problem, not to mention the peak-uranium problem.<br /><br />The effect is to lend support to the present new wave of Nuclear 1.0 (or at best Nuclear 1.2) projects worldwide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-75558720045978513902013-07-26T15:49:32.214+01:002013-07-26T15:49:32.214+01:00Fair enoughFair enoughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-19838184867631430452013-07-25T06:17:32.677+01:002013-07-25T06:17:32.677+01:00Except that Hinckley Point C is an example of Nucl...Except that Hinckley Point C is an example of Nuclear 1.0, so I think we are getting our numbers in a muddle here. In reality, nuclear research doesn't split the technologies into 1.0 and 2.0, that is author's licence. More conventionally its talked about in "generations" and it's Gen 3 and Gen 4 that are attracting the interest. Fast breeders are but one possible technologyMark Brinkleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-54436674569572752592013-07-24T22:39:14.020+01:002013-07-24T22:39:14.020+01:00OK, this is future hope, Nuclear 3.0.
So its promi...OK, this is future hope, Nuclear 3.0.<br />So its promise cannot support any present-technology nuclear programme - I mean Hinkley C isn't going to be Fast Breeder is it? Renewed worldwide Nuclear 2.0 is as "staggeringly bad bet" dirty as ever.<br />Let's not think it's OK because Fast Breeders will (definitely maybe) come along to clean up Hinkley's renewed lethal Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-48367940250238769442013-07-24T21:13:01.315+01:002013-07-24T21:13:01.315+01:00You don't have to dig very deep to find out ab...You don't have to dig very deep to find out about fast breeder reactors. They are nothing new and, yes, they do promise to consume 99% of radioactive material and the resulting 1% waste lasts decades rather than millennia. There have been numerous fast breeder reactors but there have also been significant problems with them and as far as I know none has run commercially, so it's not a Mark Brinkleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-60075049430776125352013-07-24T20:37:47.329+01:002013-07-24T20:37:47.329+01:00Create no waste - and to consume all the old waste...Create no waste - and to consume all the old waste as well? - news to me, and to others apparently well informed - will come back to you on that!<br /><br />But 'Seek to' you say - so is it just a hope or aspiration, as likely as CCS, but pushing ahead regardless? Anyway you say it's only 'low level' - so these nuclear waste tombs (if any) are as harmless to wander around in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-18769451390187569672013-07-24T16:55:08.496+01:002013-07-24T16:55:08.496+01:00Tom,
I'm not sure its my "key belief&quo...Tom,<br /><br />I'm not sure its my "key belief" because I don't see the storage of relatively low level nuclear waste for thousands of years as a huge problem. The earth's crust is already a storehouse of low level radioactive material (think thorium and uranium) and we've survived quite nicely thank you. And bear in mind that the longer lasting a radioactive material Mark Brinkleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-13107781910328573852013-07-24T15:25:01.315+01:002013-07-24T15:25:01.315+01:00So Mark, your key belief is that Nuclear 2.0 will ...So Mark, your key belief is that Nuclear 2.0 will no longer produce lethal waste that has to be stored absolutely faultlessly for 1000s of years?<br />If that staggeringly bad bet still applied, then you'd instantly rule out Nuclear 2.0?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-58862332378960707392013-07-22T07:44:51.539+01:002013-07-22T07:44:51.539+01:00Lots of good points, but then I suspect you haven&...Lots of good points, but then I suspect you haven't read this short ebook because most (possibly all) of them are answered. <br /><br />The one comment I would pick you up on is your critique of the "amazingly powerful nuclear lobby." My view is the complete opposite. I reckon the nuclear lobby is woeful and inept, which is one of the main reasons the industry is in retreat in Mark Brinkleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-65085226322102799932013-07-21T14:01:28.480+01:002013-07-21T14:01:28.480+01:00You don't understand the practical difference ...You don't understand the practical difference between a Eu 6 trillion liability with a low risk in any one year - but non-zero; e.g., it would have happened in the UK after any repeat of the 1607 freak weather event or the 1703 great storm - and a Eu.100k or 1M liability with a risk of say one in 1,000 in any one year. <br /><br />If you would look behind the public utterances of TEPCO, they Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-77299836319609715142013-07-18T17:44:20.943+01:002013-07-18T17:44:20.943+01:00"The risks are overstated" I agree with..."The risks are overstated" I agree with that. However, the Economist (not exactly a leftish/greenish publication) concluded in a special report last year that nuclear power is unlikely to have much of a future, simply due to its cost which has always been underestimated and shows no signs of coming down.<br />http://www.economist.com/node/21549936<br />I suppose a technological NCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15466883644394731410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-31267714726675123382013-07-18T04:46:56.480+01:002013-07-18T04:46:56.480+01:00You hooked one! Congrats.You hooked one! Congrats.crfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10726414637021391906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-23294530296090008232013-07-17T21:25:54.293+01:002013-07-17T21:25:54.293+01:00Arguably Nuclear 1.0 has proven to be a dead end b...Arguably Nuclear 1.0 has proven to be a dead end because of all the political problems it has run into. But Nuclear 2.0 seeks to resolve many (all?) of these with technology. Waste shouldn't have to be stored underground, or anywhere else, it should be used as fuel in breeder reactors. Yes, it makes for a "plutonium economy" for sure: so what? That has to be better and safer than a Mark Brinkleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-19779557712847562432013-07-17T19:59:48.606+01:002013-07-17T19:59:48.606+01:00Being one of the many Germans you don't know, ...Being one of the many Germans you don't know, what first comes to my mind is that we, the Germans, are currently looking for a possibiliy to dispose of our remaining nuclear waste. And guess what: Even the people in those locations where they have always been in favour of nuclear reactors, because the whole village was earning good money there, nobody will accept even an intermediate storage Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-4697841517889335232013-07-17T13:47:04.888+01:002013-07-17T13:47:04.888+01:00Maybe. But Nuclear 2.0 is a fairly short treatise....Maybe. But Nuclear 2.0 is a fairly short treatise. If you want a more detailed airing of the various arguments, I'd recommend Gwyneth Cravens "Power To save The World."Mark Brinkleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03473684038478246288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-65036613433822154592013-07-17T13:13:16.795+01:002013-07-17T13:13:16.795+01:00'it still wins out as one of the less destruct...'it still wins out as one of the less destructive ways of making electricity' LOL, can't think of a more destructive method myself! <br />Warning, if you use language like 'solid core of energy activists who have dug their heels in and continue to think that nuclear power is the work of the devil' people might think your argument is shaky if you 'argue' in that ***https://www.blogger.com/profile/11830698543278455711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14798090.post-53256074876289844862013-07-17T13:07:42.972+01:002013-07-17T13:07:42.972+01:00Well, I attended one of the showings of Pandora...Well, I attended one of the showings of Pandora's Promise (at the MIT Nuclear Science department). Of course that showing was filled with people who are on board. But there was one guy from the general public who asked questions at the end, who said he wasn't convinced by the movie itself and wanted to see the sources. Robert Stone said then that a companion book was coming out with the Maryhttps://plus.google.com/115686712405727979216/aboutnoreply@blogger.com