tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post6520237436351438096..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Is Nuclear Too Hot to Handle?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-34462451927173006332007-07-10T13:47:00.000-04:002007-07-10T13:47:00.000-04:00I wasn't referring to GNEP there. I meant all nucl...I wasn't referring to GNEP there. I meant all nuclear technologies.David Bradishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439638522932781068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-11087150798487674492007-07-10T11:34:00.000-04:002007-07-10T11:34:00.000-04:00"to dismiss a technology that already provides sub..."to dismiss a technology that already provides substantial benefits to the world would be irresponsible"<BR/><BR/>Which GNEP advanced reprocessing technologies meet this criterion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-16658401828578342322007-07-08T01:12:00.000-04:002007-07-08T01:12:00.000-04:00many laughable arguments to list.One of my favorit...many laughable arguments to list.<BR/><BR/>One of my favorite’s is calculating the maximum built rate, almost 30 years ago, in France alone, and then saying that it would be too much to assume that the entire world could build at this rate. The ability to build nukes scales with GNP, and the entire world’s GNP in the coming decades is ~100 times what France’s was 30 years ago. If China alone can build one coal plant per week, the whole world can build at least one nuclear plant per week, if not more. If anything, the “goal” of 33% of world power by 2075 (that they analyzed) is far too conservative/humble.<BR/><BR/>Another ridiculous suggestion is that we should give up on a major source of CO2 reduction because there is some chance that someone someday could build a dirty bomb. Not only are dirty bombs insignificant in the grand scheme of things (i.e., global warming and hundreds of thousands of deaths every single year from fossil fuels), but everyone knows that the great majority of dirty bomb risk comes from the medical industry (something that these clowns aren’t asking to be “taken off the table”).<BR/><BR/>A third ridiculous assertion is that nuclear programs have to be introduced to small developing countries all over the world, like Congo, in order for nuclear to make a difference. Larger, more developed nations that already have nuclear power make up ~80-90% of CO2 emissions, and that fraction is actually not going to change to much in the future (note that China & India already have plants). Even if we didn’t allow any new, small, developing countries to have nuclear, nuclear’s potential to reduce CO2 would not be significantly reduced.<BR/><BR/>One final point is the notion that nuclear must be able to do it all or it should be taken off the table. I’ve never seen this notion applied to any other source. If any specific renewable source can not do the job all by itself, should it be taken off the table? This report doesn’t even seem to make any pretense of being rational or serious. It is a comical screed.JimHopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18314532584148376698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-62155720059183104592007-07-07T18:56:00.000-04:002007-07-07T18:56:00.000-04:00Ralph is right - the serious anti-nuclear oppositi...Ralph is right - the serious anti-nuclear opposition is not trying to debate, learn or engage in constructive discussion. They are selling a message that helps to ensure the profitability of their main sponsors.<BR/><BR/>The Council on Foreign Relations has a foundational history in helping to study, understand and defend the interests of the first multinational industry - the fossil fuel industry. It was a brainchild of people associated with Rockefeller and Morgan and has always attracted the political and economic establishment. In a petroleum based economy, that always includes major representation from the fossil fuel energy industry. When you think about that industry, do not forget the supporting cast in transportation, finance, and end users.<BR/><BR/>There should be no surprise that CFR sponsored publications give short shrift to the prospects for nuclear power growth. By simply repeating their message and getting the established media to cover that repetition, they succeed in slowing down their competition. That is a very effective tactic in their overall strategy for maintaining their profitability, market power, and political influence.Rod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-16161311348862539042007-07-07T00:10:00.000-04:002007-07-07T00:10:00.000-04:00You seem surprised that the anti-nuke people are r...You seem surprised that the anti-nuke people are repeating the same stuff over and over again. They do this because they are advertising, not debating. They don't care what the pro-nuke people are saying. All they want to do is shout "LA LA LA LA" as loud as they can in the classroom so the teacher cannot present the lesson. The pro-nuke people never seem to understand this - this process is one of selling, not debating. You need movie stars saying they like it. Seriously.Randal Leavitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-9211306943242207442007-07-06T16:54:00.000-04:002007-07-06T16:54:00.000-04:00I read this report. It was scary. I pulled the c...I read this report. It was scary. I pulled the covers over my head. That seemed to do the trick. But this report was intended to scare people. And the uninformed believe in the boogeyman.Norris McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14564345494443383507noreply@blogger.com