Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Who Killed the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)29. How did he get that post? He isn't a climatologist
And his Climate Change Chair is funded by the State government - an entity known to be far more interested in (uranium) mining than climate change.
Paydirt 2009 Uranium Conference
...Manufacturers, academics, and analysts all seem to agree that the long term fundamentals for uranium prices are compelling. Francisco Tarin, Purchasing Manager at Enusa, a Spanish joint-venture nuclear fuel rod producer, recently said in an interview, If it goes up to $50 or $60, that would be reasonable because we have seen much higher prices in recent years and the industry could withstand them. University of Adelaide professor Barry Brook noted that should the contributing factors be as acute as predicted, the continuing surge in demand for uranium would be extended by a further 20 years. His bullish outlook at the Paydirt 2010 Australian Uranium Conference was predicated on his forecasts that rising electricity demand and declining fossil fuel dependence will lead to a global demand for mined uranium resulting in price appreciation of at least four times current valuations. Chinese nuclear analyst at Nomura investment bank, Elaine Wu suggested that, Uranium is going to be the key focus for China because China is not endowed with a lot of uranium resources. Currently even at 8 gigawatt capacity, China has to import about half of its uranium needs.
http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/3174/uranium-prices-set-to-climb.html
That is flatly contradicted by MIT and other specialists in nuclear energy.
Selling the expansion of a uranium mine in his home state:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/05/carbon-footprint-of-the-olympic-dam-uranium-mine-expansion/
Downplaying concerns about effect of Fukushima on uranium demand:
Company Announcement: Climate Change Head Says Japan Nuclear Incident Has Not Killed One Member Of Public But Will Fuel Useful Debate
"Attached please find a press release on: A pro-nuclear advocate says the serious problems faced by the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant has not killed one member of the public, but has generated a new basis on which much wider debate in Australia and overseas can now take place.
Addressing a specially arranged Japan nuclear issues session this afternoon on the first day of the Paydirt 2011 Uranium Conference in Adelaide, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Professor Barry Brook, said although Fukushima has emerged as a serious Level 5 accident on the international nuclear event scale, it was wrong to call it an accident as it was in all effect, an act of God."
"Attached please find a press release on: A pro-nuclear advocate says the serious problems faced by the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant has not killed one member of the public, but has generated a new basis on which much wider debate in Australia and overseas can now take place.
Addressing a specially arranged Japan nuclear issues session this afternoon on the first day of the Paydirt 2011 Uranium Conference in Adelaide, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Professor Barry Brook, said although Fukushima has emerged as a serious Level 5 accident on the international nuclear event scale, it was wrong to call it an accident as it was in all effect, an act of God."
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/company-announcement-climate-change-head-says-japan-nuclear-incident-has-not-killed-one-member-of-public-but-will-fuel-useful-debate-2011-03-22
Featured speaker at "Paydirt's 2012 Uranium Conference"
http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/prof-barry-brook/
http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/2839/uranium-demand-set-to-quadruple-by-2050.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
149 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, I'm not looking at economics, I'm looking at environmental considerations.
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#28
700+ environmental organizations think that we should sit on nuclear waste...
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#32
The DOD wanted all reactors to be dual purpose -- provide plutonium for weapons, as well as power.
eppur_se_muova
Dec 2011
#2
Did it ever occur to you that the US commercial nuclear fuel cycle was developed to produce bombs
jpak
Dec 2011
#91
North Korea's plutonium production reactor had an electrical generating capacity of 5 MWe
jpak
Dec 2011
#98
Barry Brook is the Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide.
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#21
He might as well be drawing a paycheck directly from the uranium mining industry.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#37
Nice find. Brook's environmental record remains untarnished by anonymous detractors.
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#90
The damage comes from both the use of the energy and the waste products of its production.
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#52
OK - why is human impact 6x what it should be to guarantee long-term sustainability?
wtmusic
Dec 2011
#83
I base my opinion on the situation around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#84
There is no plan. The required change is too large to be anything except involuntary.
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#64
The "required change" I talk about has little to do with immediate human welfare.
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#66
I thought I was clear. I don't "propose" any mechanism, I think all we have to do is wait.
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#70
According to WHO, "only" 150,000 annual deaths are directly attributable to global warming
wtmusic
Dec 2011
#80