What this World Defiantly Needs…
Carbon free electricity offers to solve all mankind’s needs in: Industry & Recycling, Heating, Transportation (e.g. through hydrogen production) and
one day in food. At first through hydroponics and grow lights en.wikipedia.org...
then even synthetic food production directly. In
short: Carbon free electricity offers humanity a sustainable environmental future, together with limitless living standards (quite literally) almost
irrespective of how big world population ever
What they Don’t Want You to Understand & Later Why…
Coal Kills Far More people than nuclear…
Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people
Coal is often naturally radioactive, see coal plant fined giving radiation exposure
A power plant has overexposed its workers to radiation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a fine. The plant, though, is not a
reactor; it runs on coal. green.blogs.nytimes.com...
A typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation into the environment than a nuclear one…
In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100
times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
But among the most intriguing stats that Downs includes in his report is that “the average coal plant releases 100 times more annual
radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.” www.cnbc.com...
Overall coal kills 4000 times more people than nuclear (per unit of energy generated) and nuclear has killed less than hydroelectric
(because of the tendency for dams to burst).
While the official severity of the Fukushima nuclear disaster was raised today, very little
attention seems to be expended to the millions of people who will die as a result of coal-related accidents, pollution and climate change.
This is all information Google, the Green movement, and green industry (often quite dependent on the cronyism, of their political contacts) does
not want you sheeple knowing…
Out of control coal stream fires emit more CO2 than all cars in America
It is said that the coal fires burning in China alone emit
more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the cars and light trucks in the U.S. www.celsias.com...
This is about 3% of world total CO2 emissions (partly because the hydrogen in gasoline-diesel makes it relatively low carbon intensity (to
Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning now. The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich
nations such as China. Global coal fire emission are estimated to include 40 tons of mercury going into the atmosphere annually, and three percent of
the world's annual CO2emissions. en.wikipedia.org...
If you Google: “list of countries by Carbon Dioxide Emissions”, you get the following disclaimer….
The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use,
land-use change and forestry.
A fuller list (without but the honesty of a disclaimer) is here:
The next question then is why?
Why not include e.g. deforestation?
deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14
per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total” www.appinsys.com...
Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Changedeforestation, mainly in tropical areas, could account for up to one-third of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. But
recent calculations suggest that carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (excluding peatland emissions) contribute about
12% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with a range from 6 to 17% en.wikipedia.org...
The problem with including this reality in political reality is it contradicts blaming the Western world, for most the world’s problems. That and
the countries doing the deforestation would demand money, money that could otherwise be enriching the crony capitalists (friends of
making money from subsidy dependant “green technologies”. Dependant on subsidies because they simply do not (adequately) work.
Why this reality Advocates Nuclear:
If we have a corrupt government, that feels the need to enrich corrupt investors with taxpayers money
(which unfortunately we do, and realistically always will do until we have say a functional
democracy –but which could easily be some century
after I’m dead!)
Then advocate nuclear (because it’s established green industry
), that delivers better than all the others, and is therefore much less of a
waste of taxpayers’ money –corruption problem. I.e. it still enriches the big & powerful, but far more productively. This is realism, and realism
is (surely?) much better than “day dreaming”.
As well Co2 and radiation, coal also emits vast amounts mercury
In 1999, EPA estimated that approximately 75 tons of mercury were found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of
this mercury was emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually.
Yet world nuclear (as a percentage of electricity) is actually in very steep decline photos.mongabay.com...
Common Exaggerations About Nuclear…
“We only want nuclear reactors because of nuclear weapons”
Although you do not need a nuclear reactor to build a nuclear bomb (can be done solely out of enriched uranium), you do need it to produce e.g.
Plutonium. So in the 1950’s & 60’s this statement was true in both the US and UK and (may be in Iran today). But it is no longer true as the UK
and US already have more than enough plutonium than they know what to do with…
Britain has 112 tonnes www.world-nuclear-news.org...
which is enough to make thousands of
nukes, but the UK only has only between 165 and 200 warheads.
Thankfully plutonium can be turned into reactor fuel, the technology is expensive, but is getting cheaper and certainly coming our way
The multibillion pound project would take plutonium – the residue from the UK's nuclear power plants – and use it as fuel for a 600MW
reactor that could provide power for 750,000 homes, according to GE Hitachi.
“We can’t build a reactor that’s safe”
Uninformed: The Pebble bed reactor cannot go into meltdown, no matter how, or how rapidly its cooling system is damaged…
Its main drawback is it produces a large amount of nuclear waste, because its so highly balanced the build-up of contaminants from Transmutation
inevitably has a big effect. Nuclear waste always will be expensive to process, so large amounts have made the Pebble Bed reactor unfashionable. Still
there is a way around reactors biggest safety problem (potential meltdown).
“We cannot get rid of the nuclear waste”
Firstly (for perspective) you need to ask “how many has nuclear waste killed?” It’s certainly a mere fraction of what nuclear accidents kill,
themselves much less than other sources.
Fast breeder reactors have long been good at getting rid of most nuke waste they produce.
Another reactor can already get rid of most of what it produces
Another can do it, but the prototype had its funding cancelled
IFR-style reactors produce much less waste than LWR-style reactors, and can even consume other waste as fuel.
Another type promises to be even better…
It is however true it will never be cost effective to dispose of all low level waste. But then again if it’s buried in concrete filled, stainless
steel barrels, and deep within rock that millions of years old; well… it’s not one of mandkinds biggest problems –nothing like as big as the
need to generate carbon free electricity.
The Next Questions is Why?
Why does MSM not want you to know that: (as long as the world’s burning coal) nuclear energy is FAR less threatening to both Mother Earth’s
and mankind’s well-being?
I suspect the answer has something to do with the realisation coal is a MUCH bigger industry than nuclear…
In the UK coal is 33%, whilst fossil fuel (“thermal” in this graph) is about 4 times bigger than nuclears 17.9 percent…
In the US coal is 44.9%, natural gas 23.4, and nuclear 20.3% en.wikipedia.org...
Worldwide coal is 41% of electricity, and nuclear just 15%
The Realist Problem with Nuclear Energy Is…
Nuclear reactors age because transmutation (radioactive lead turning into e.g. radioactive gold, or even hydrogen) happens throughout the reactor, and
over many decades makes it structurally unstable. Chemically there’s little to know problem as such elements tend to react with their opposite, in
proportion to their production.
Problem is half of US reactors are over 30 years old…
This is bad…
An investigation by AP reveals how the industry has found a simple solution to ageing: weaken safety standards until creaking plants meet
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to be reformed-abolished! It is probably one of the most corrupt, bureaucratic organisations ever!!! On the
one hand it takes years to approve a new nuclear reactor designs, whilst China does it (perfectly thoroughly) in around 6 to 12 months…
It is estimated that the NRC would take five years to approve a conventional reactor — that’s stated as a hypothetical because none have
ever actually been approved. The idea of dealing with an exotic new technology is enough to give the Commission a nervous breakdown.
The NRC is expected to take at least three years to approve it, due to a
backlog of applications at the agency discovermagazine.com...:int=1&-C=
The commission voted to immediately approve the design. This unusual step bypasses the usual 30 day waiting period. Why the concern about a 30
day waiting period after taking 4 ½ years to approve the design is unclear.
And on the other hand when it comes to the most challenging issue (deciding if existing reactors are can safely continue, or are becoming a threat;
they are very much in the industries hands). Little as even more profitable than building new nukes, is keeping old dangerous ones running.
This Said, Consider…
The Problem with Today’s Renewables
1. Coal is the most disgusting form of energy (in all respects). The abundance of opposition for nuclear from “Green” groups, whilst (relative)
absence for coal is either an expression of the deepest ignorance, or most undemocratically held political ideologies.
2. Today’s nuclear technology is far superior to the ideas developed in the 1960’s and built in the 1970’s (this applies to all 3 recent nuclear
disasters: 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima). Not only that the technology will continue improve virtually indefinitely, and so there should be
about as much sense in saying all “nuclear is bad-dangerous” as there is in saying all “electricity is bad-dangerous”
3. Hydroelectric (the most reliable nuclear alternative) has killed more with dam burst, upsets ecosystems, and isn’t available enough.
4. Geothermal is a combination of usually in wrong place, not enough of it (close enough), or not cheap enough.
5. Solar and wind are far from reliable, and the storage costs (or standby gas generators needed to fill gaps in demand) cost too much.
6. Tidal energy works well (but because its dependant on moon cycles) it too inevitably becomes out of rhythm with peak electricity demand times.
9. (The current) biofuels should be renamed “starvation & deforestation fuels” and algae biofuels (whilst promising) are far from cost
10. Electricity producing bacteria seem promising. But yet again cost and scale of production is its biggest enemies.
11. Osmotic power is limited by today’s materials, and may not be adequate enough en.wikipedia.org...
Conclusion: Even Chernobyl looks Saintly
Nuclear energy comes in many different technologies, and the safety of each technology is extremely variable. Therefore somebody wishing to build a
replica of e.g. Chernobyl will have my full opposition.
And (for the moment) even the best technologies present some risk. But in comparison with coal, even a Chernobyl replica is (matter of fact) verging
on being a saintly technology. Because…
Chernobyl’s death toll ranges from an absurd 56 deaths
A United Nations report said Monday that the number of people killed in almost 20 years since the world's worst nuclear accident is 56 - much
lower than previously estimated. www.cbc.ca...
Which is less than US coal kills in a day (it’s about 82 people)
Taking in this consideration, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) put the global death toll closer to 27,000 rather than 16,000.
18,000 is the maximum number I believe (i.e. just over 6 months of US coal)
Green Peace (long, politically opposed, to nuclear) puts the numbers at 90,000
(3 US coal emissions years)
Some extremists even claim it killed one million, i.e. as many as coal in the us kills in the US (alone) every 33.3 years
The above estimate is an insult to science, and pure money spinner for those who writes books based on little more than fear. But even if it was true
(in addition CO2 emissions) one needs to consider the environmental devastation caused by e.g. By Mountain Hilltop Mining
In addition to permanently destroying wildlife habits, it permanently contaminants the water table, and if CO2 isn’t a problem it’s considered a
fact that by the time world coal reserves are burnt, it will be!
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Grammar