Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I changed my mind about nuclear power [from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear]
TED Talk at YouTube ^ | Nov 17, 2017 | Michael Shellenberger

Posted on 09/14/2019 12:15:34 PM PDT by grundle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bloggers; nuclearpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 09/14/2019 12:15:34 PM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grundle

Thanks for not stealing this for your blog but I don’t
think this qualifies as news. Really don’t. Cheers.


2 posted on 09/14/2019 12:20:59 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Anyone who likes recycling must inevitably like nuclear power.

Recycling is impossible without lots of inexpensive energy.

To be pro-recycling but anti-nuclear is profoundly illogical and self-contradictory.

3 posted on 09/14/2019 12:23:14 PM PDT by Steely Tom ([Seth Rich] == [the Democrat's John Dean])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

We don’t even know how to dispose of nuclear waste safely.

Nuclear power feels like a little kid behind the wheel of a Lamborghini in a crowded plaza.


4 posted on 09/14/2019 12:24:58 PM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Spent nuclear fuel rods can be recycled into new fuel. Except Jimmy Carter outlawed doing that.

Lift that, and most of the nuclear waste issue goes away.


5 posted on 09/14/2019 12:27:39 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Socialists want YOUR wealth redistributed, never THEIRS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Sure we do, we call them Breeder Reactors, see Nuclear Submarine.


6 posted on 09/14/2019 12:30:07 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Same goes for global warming worshipers who, if true to the tenets of their secular religion should passionately promote nuclear power.


7 posted on 09/14/2019 12:30:32 PM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

“We don’t even know how to dispose of nuclear waste safely.”

We do!


8 posted on 09/14/2019 12:38:45 PM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

“Sure we do, we call them Breeder Reactors, see Nuclear Submarine.”

Why do yo refer to nuclear submarines?


9 posted on 09/14/2019 12:39:55 PM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: glennaro

“Same goes for global warming worshipers who, if true to the tenets of their secular religion should passionately promote nuclear power.”

The only global warming worshippers are the useful idiots.


10 posted on 09/14/2019 12:41:33 PM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
We don’t even know how to dispose of nuclear waste safely.

Breeder reactors?

11 posted on 09/14/2019 12:43:03 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

Nuclear power is why we should never, ever listen to the left on anything. Had we gone full blown nuclear power in the 70s, we would have achieved energy independence 2 or more decades ago. Relatively CLEAN energy independence without all this beyond stupid wind energy attempts.

Nuclear waste may create some issues, but not as many as solar and electric batteries produce.


12 posted on 09/14/2019 12:48:11 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; eyeamok; TexasGator

OK, well, maybe so, didn’t know about that.

Everybody loves the Lamborghini but we haven’t shown that we know enough to prevent horrific disasters and prevent meltdowns once it has started. To me, I feel like we’re still a little kid trying to drive that big beautiful machine.


13 posted on 09/14/2019 12:48:49 PM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fso301

OK, well, maybe so, didn’t know about that.

Everybody loves the Lamborghini but to me, we haven’t shown that we know enough to prevent horrific disasters and prevent meltdowns once it has started. To me, I feel like we’re still a little kid trying to drive that big beautiful machine.


14 posted on 09/14/2019 12:52:39 PM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
"We don’t even know how to dispose of nuclear waste safely."

We KNOW where and how, in Yucca Mountain, and the WIPP facility near Carlsbad, New Mexico.

We would have been up and running years ago, if Harry Reid hadn't blocked it until he could figure out how to profit off the site. His son owns big chunks of desert that the road to it would be built over.

One other point. And a Biggie.
Just because we don't recycle all the spent fuel NOW, does not mean we should bury it beyond access. It can be dangerous to chemically recycle, and a list of nuclear industrial accidents bears that out.

Besides, Carter didn't want breeder reactors, since, while they actually create nuclear fuel, the fuel is usable for weapons. The same guy, a f#$king Democrat, who walked us into the gas shortage, the Double Nickle, and the Iran Hostage crisis. Carter did a lot of damage in four years. That was when people still trusted presidents.

One of those industrial accidents, SL-1, one Ensign Carter worked on cleaning up, back in the early 50's.

15 posted on 09/14/2019 12:55:53 PM PDT by jonascord (First rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that you do not know you are in the Dunning-Kruger club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

You are absolutely 100% incorrect. It’s called a breader reactor, it processes spent fuel into fresh new fuel. We know how to make and operate them. We just don’t because of the anti nuclear crowd.


16 posted on 09/14/2019 12:58:15 PM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

“but we haven’t shown that we know enough to prevent horrific disasters and prevent meltdowns once it has started.”

We know. We know how to drive cars safely but still have over 40,000 traffic deaths in the US each year.


17 posted on 09/14/2019 12:58:27 PM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Harry Reid stopped that with the help of Obama.


18 posted on 09/14/2019 1:07:46 PM PDT by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Why I changed my mind about nuclear power [from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear]

...Because there is not nearly enough highly radioactive water pouring into the Pacific Ocean?

19 posted on 09/14/2019 1:11:27 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Nuke power == Stranded asset.

The BrLP guys are making progress harnessing the process of taking the electron in a Hydrogen atom to a _lower_ than the ‘assumed’ ground state (as presently assumed/defined in QM).

Their latest vids show a calorimetry test in progress:

Time compressed (actual elapsed time = 1 hour) run in 120 gal water tank
https://youtu.be/x7CeIbmwIVk

Using calculators on this page, I estimate power (energy production rate) to be at least (well over?) 40 kW (which is nothing to sneeze at). 40 kW is one big water heater (166 Amps on a 240 V circuit.)

https://bloglocation.com/art/water-heating-calculator-for-time-energy-power

Assumptions:

1) 120 gal tank = 454 L (per video notes)
2) 1 Hour (per video notes)
3) End temp assumed 210 deg F (calculators do not assume steam or heat loss)
4) No steam production

Note: If water temp is 210 deg F at the 1 min mark (about 2/3 of the way through a 1 hr video) power output is closer to 60 kW.

Input “fuel” is basically 2 ounces of water’s worth of hydrogen instead of approx. 1.5 gallons of gasoline.


20 posted on 09/14/2019 1:12:31 PM PDT by _Jim (Save babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson