Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

30. You are hyping thin air.

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:56 PM

Dec 2011

There are no significant environmental considerations. If environmentalism were your motive you'd never be arguing the path you are. 700+ environmental organizations can't all be wrong.

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:

Who Killed the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? [View all] wtmusic Dec 2011 OP

So what's the narrative here? SpoonFed Dec 2011 #1

The "narrative" is that not all nuclear power options are the same wtmusic Dec 2011 #7

But all of the nuclear power options HAVE been evaluated kristopher Dec 2011 #9

Ha ha ha. Nice try. txlibdem Dec 2011 #10

Nothing more to be done... PamW Dec 2011 #13

Uh, no, they haven't. It's all been LWRs and fast spectrum. joshcryer Dec 2011 #22

Wrong as usual.... PamW Dec 2011 #23

That's not after TMI? joshcryer Dec 2011 #25

Pg 75, 76 MIT "The Future of Nuclear Power" 2003 kristopher Dec 2011 #26

Note 1 pg 17 MIT "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" 2010 kristopher Dec 2011 #27

LFTR? Maslo55 Dec 2011 #86

Yes, I'm not looking at economics, I'm looking at environmental considerations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #28

You are hyping thin air. kristopher Dec 2011 #30

700+ environmental organizations think that we should sit on nuclear waste... joshcryer Dec 2011 #32

Read what MIT said. kristopher Dec 2011 #34

MIT says long term closed cycle may become something. joshcryer Dec 2011 #35

1979 - 1994 is also after TMI PamW Dec 2011 #39

Fast reactor funding dropped dramatically after TMI. joshcryer Dec 2011 #40

I watch the video - I wonder if you did... PamW Dec 2011 #42

Nice video PamW Dec 2011 #43

This is really untrue. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #143

EVs on the grid... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #144

And you know that how? kristopher Jan 2012 #145

Are these the same people who... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #19

The DOD wanted all reactors to be dual purpose -- provide plutonium for weapons, as well as power. eppur_se_muova Dec 2011 #2

BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2011 #12

Documentation: PamW Dec 2011 #18

Hold the mayo... Wilms Dec 2011 #24

Watts Bar is a commercial power reactor jpak Dec 2011 #44

Elaboration... PamW Dec 2011 #47

Oh yeah - the same uranium enrichment plants that produced HEU for bombs jpak Dec 2011 #45

False equation... PamW Dec 2011 #46

Iran & North Korea jpak Dec 2011 #49

Did it ever occur to you.... PamW Dec 2011 #62

Did it ever occur to you that the US commercial nuclear fuel cycle was developed to produce bombs jpak Dec 2011 #91

NO - because I KNOW better PamW Dec 2011 #97

North Korea's plutonium production reactor had an electrical generating capacity of 5 MWe jpak Dec 2011 #98

Hardly a "power reactor" PamW Dec 2011 #99

What's the significance? PamW Dec 2011 #101

That dubious honor goes to Admiral Rickoven txlibdem Dec 2011 #3

We need to give this technology a serious try. LAGC Dec 2011 #4

The way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #5

We cannot Maslo55 Dec 2011 #87

Prove - beyond a shadow of a doubt... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #93

renewables Maslo55 Dec 2011 #95

You want to set the limit at 20 years? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #104

20 years will be not enough Maslo55 Dec 2011 #105

Correct - renewables are not cheaper PamW Dec 2011 #106

Cherry pick much? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #107

However... PamW Dec 2011 #109

Solyndra has nothing to do with it... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #111

Upon second thought... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #116

WRONG!!! PamW Dec 2011 #119

Come on Pam... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #126

WRONG! PamW Dec 2011 #129

Price-Anderson liability insurance isn't free PamW Dec 2011 #118

Gosh, that's a huge amount of money... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #127

Again... PamW Dec 2011 #110

Right now... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #113

Made up numbers... PamW Dec 2011 #120

No Pam... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #125

Credentials? PamW Dec 2011 #130

My credentials? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #133

Duh! Obvious! PamW Jan 2012 #135

Well, I look at your postings... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #141

More effect... PamW Dec 2011 #131

Hate to tell you... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #134

YES!!! PamW Jan 2012 #136

Geezeeeee..... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #137

Well get the job done... PamW Jan 2012 #139

The science says... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #140

You don't know the pricing algorithms PamW Jan 2012 #138

Your quote... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #142

You're not "getting it"... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #108

Come on Bob... he/she is clearly going for the laughs... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #115

No. SpoonFed Dec 2011 #20

you are obviously Maslo55 Dec 2011 #96

You're funny... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #112

Factual arguments ahead Maslo55 Dec 2011 #117

Those numbers... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #121

About 30-40 years ago... PamW Dec 2011 #124

This... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #128

Here are some of the "wind energy deaths"... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #132

Actually Four people were killed on December 9, 1986 Throckmorton Jan 2012 #149

That "burning" thing... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #122

That Germany thing... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #123

What are the problems with LFTR technology? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #6

Your point is that a lengthy discussion wtmusic Dec 2011 #8

I think what many of us recognize... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #11

Nothing of the sort OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #16

Now ask that same question with regards to IFR. joshcryer Dec 2011 #15

LFTR and IFR are the only nuclear technologies I might advocate. joshcryer Dec 2011 #14

Barry Brock is an Australian Uranium Sales team leader. kristopher Dec 2011 #17

Barry Brook is the Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide. joshcryer Dec 2011 #21

How did he get that post? He isn't a climatologist kristopher Dec 2011 #29

His expertise was conservation biology. joshcryer Dec 2011 #31

He isn't a climatologist so how did he get the Climate Chair? kristopher Dec 2011 #33

His entire acedemic history is suitible for that chair? joshcryer Dec 2011 #36

He might as well be drawing a paycheck directly from the uranium mining industry. kristopher Dec 2011 #37

Speaking at a conference, likely unpaid, hardly merits that observation. joshcryer Dec 2011 #38

Some of the most unresisting imbecility I've seen posted in this forum. wtmusic Dec 2011 #41

South Australia is the hub of uranium mining in AU. kristopher Dec 2011 #55

You just reposted what you posted before. joshcryer Dec 2011 #79

Breaking: Brook was just appointed to judge the Global Energy Prize wtmusic Dec 2011 #82

Nice find. Brook's environmental record remains untarnished by anonymous detractors. joshcryer Dec 2011 #90

Because the University thought he was best suited for the job? Nederland Dec 2011 #69

We all know full well... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #114

I fervently hope it stays dead. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #48

There's another option... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #50

It�s not the energy, it�s the source of the energy OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #51

The damage comes from both the use of the energy and the waste products of its production. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #52

Use of energy does not directly lead to �ecocidal damage� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #53

Of course it does. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #54

Once again, it�s a matter of thinking OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #56

Which do you suppose causes less damage - GliderGuider Dec 2011 #57

Take it as a given that there will be agriculture in the future OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #58

My ideal goal would be to reduce human impact on the planet by 85%. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #59

OK, so energy usage is not the problem in your equation OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #60

The impact of aggregate human activity is the problem. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #63

How did you arrive at .15 for deltaPI? nt wtmusic Dec 2011 #74

My working assumption these days is that GliderGuider Dec 2011 #81

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

What's your plan? The one in which we kill 6 billion people... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #61

There is no plan. The required change is too large to be anything except involuntary. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #64

I posted no comments... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #65

The "required change" I talk about has little to do with immediate human welfare. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #66

Well, let's go back to the main (dodged) question... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #67

Re-introduce wolves to California? XemaSab Dec 2011 #68

Only if they're thorium powered drone wolves... nt GliderGuider Dec 2011 #71

Why not just find nice homes for them? redway420 Jan 2012 #146

I thought I was clear. I don't "propose" any mechanism, I think all we have to do is wait. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #70

OK, your route... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #72

I suspect that's going to be largely true. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #73

Sorry, ... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #75

I know it's too doomer for you, we already discussed that. n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #78

With 30,000 dying every day from starvation, it's already well underway wtmusic Dec 2011 #76

Is the rate of starvation related deaths rising? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #77

According to WHO, "only" 150,000 annual deaths are directly attributable to global warming wtmusic Dec 2011 #80

That seems to be from ten year old data... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #85

ahhhh.. the local luddite appeared. Maslo55 Dec 2011 #88

Feels good doesn't it? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #89

I dont understand Maslo55 Dec 2011 #94

Maybe this will help GliderGuider Dec 2011 #100

your position Maslo55 Dec 2011 #102

We're clearly on opposite sides of the fence on this. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #103

A challenger appears! joshcryer Dec 2011 #92

Benford, Bear, and Brin explore the "People first" ideology in their continuation of Asimov's work. hunter Jan 2012 #147

.. Maslo55 Jan 2012 #148