Tuesday, 4 February 2014
Ken Caldeira experiences "Macabre Indifference" when doing the rounds, lecturing to those interested in environmental issues.
We're prepared to continue sending 2 million people a year to early graves, alter atmospheric chemistry and acidify oceans, because it would reduce our standard of living by a tiny amount
Stop buying birthday and Christmas presents for your grandchildren and give them a better planet to live on instead !
Caldeira on Climate Science and Choices
If you asked a room-full of people - If your present energy system did not dump waste into the atmosphere and the oceans and a cheaper energy system was available that did do that, would you choose to save a tiny amount of your income to adopt the new system? The result would be - "...almost nobody has ever come up and been willing to take that trade..."
Ask the question in reverse - meaning would most people give up a tiny amount of their income for an emissions-free, less polluting system? The result would be - "...they're reluctant to do that..."
Caldeira on Climate Science and Choices (Pt. 2)
"...we can act ethically, when acting ethically is cheap, but when acting ethically is expensive, we tend to cut corners.
And so, having cheap, feasible, alternative energy technologies, that are environmentally benign, seems central..."
And this is what Ken Caldeira and James Hansen are prepared to go public about:
'To those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power'
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Maybe, just maybe - we, the general public, who don't give a you-know-what to where our energy comes from, as long as it's there 24/7, on demand, should pay due consideration to what they have to say and the energy security nuclear power gives us !
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority deems GE Hitachi’s PRISM Reactor a Credible Option for Managing Plutonium Stockpile
LONDON – January 20, 2014 - GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has welcomed today’s announcement by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) that its PRISM reactor technology is a “credible option” for managing the UK’s plutonium stockpile.
After an investigation into the potential of the various alternative options for plutonium reuse, the NDA has affirmed GEH’s view that PRISM could reuse plutonium faster than competing technologies; providing significant value for money to the UK taxpayer.
NDA’s announcement follows a two-year review process which now gives the green light for PRISM - a high energy, sodium-cooled reactor that uses proven, safe, and advanced technologies - to be considered as a credible option to manage the Sellafield plutonium stockpile.
“For more than 50 years GE has been at the forefront of energy innovation and nuclear technology and GE Hitachi’s PRISM reactor offers an attractive solution to tackling the UK’s plutonium management challenges while generating clean electricity,” said Mark Elborne, President and CEO of GE UK & Ireland.
“The UK has the largest storage of civil plutonium anywhere in the world and its Government is committed to re-using that material as an asset rather than a liability, maximizing taxpayer benefits. We believe PRISM offers the most effective solution for accomplishing this goal and look forward to the next stage of this process.”
The Government previously stated a preferred option to build a new MOX plant at Sellafield but, in an effort to gather data on technologies that offer better value or less risk to the taxpayer, responded to GEH’s interest in providing a credible alternative option for the management of plutonium, the PRISM advanced reactor.
Elborne went on: “PRISM can not only re-use the UK plutonium stockpile safely and responsibly whilst generating a step-change in industrial opportunity, but can also provide significant revenue for UK taxpayers. This is a socially and financially responsible solution”.
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
Tom Blees is presenting the IFR case to this Climate CoLab Conference:
Crowds and Climate - MIT Climate CoLab Conference
Here's his Video Presentation: Integral Fast Reactors - Electric Power Sector
Tom is President of The Science Council for Global Initiatives (SGCI):
Science Council for Global Initiatives
and Author of Prescription for the Planet:
429 Page - Free Download
62 years ago, it all began - The first Atomic Electricity generated at the Argonne National Laboratory.
What would now be the state of atmospheric and oceanic chemistries had this technology taken its rightful place in providing the world's electricity and other energy forms?
Weak-kneed politicians and ranting members of the anti-nuke lobby have a lot of explaining to do to today's young people, when current IFR technology, in the form of the PRISM reactor, starts to roll!
They put their money where their mouths were - they bet on their scientific understanding - and the reactor shut down according to the laws of physics - without human intervention - under conditions of the total loss of power and safety systems (as Fukushima)!
EBR-II and hence IFR technology is orders of magnitude safer than the technology of the LWRs (Light Water Reactors) planned for the UK's 'New Nuclear'.
"...The IFR project developed the technology for a complete system; the reactor, the entire fuel cycle, and the waste management technologies were all included in the development program. The reactor concept had important features and characteristics that were completely new and fuel cycle and waste management technologies that were entirely new developments..."
Monday, 7 October 2013
Bob Geldof was so incensed by being called a 'Silly Old Git', by a 75 year old nuclear (breeder reactor) campaigner, that he has vowed do a crash course in nuclear engineering and put his heart and soul into the promotion of breeder reactors.
He accepts unequivocally, that breeder reactor technology is capable of solving all of the worst problems facing humanity. His prognosis of wipe-out of the human race by 2030, is now confined to the dustbin of history. He accepts that his powers of communication, in the promotion of breeder reactor technology, will do a thousand times more good for the poverty
stricken and under privileged than he did with all of his Live-Aid endeavours.
He's already been on the phone to Jagger and Bowie and they've said it won't be 'Dancin' in the Street' this time - it will be - [Atomic] Power to All Our Friends.
And then - prismsuk woke up!
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
Pandora's Promise - Should be over here for UK consumption soon.
Radiophobia and Health Effects
Straight from the 'Radiophobia' webpage of Wikipedia:
The term "radiophobia" is also sometimes used in the arguments against proponents of the conservative LNT concept (Linear no-threshold response model for ionizing radiation) of radiation security proposed by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in 1949. The "no-threshold" position effectively assumes, from data extrapolated from the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that even negligible doses of radiation increase ones risk of cancer linearly as the exposure increases from a value of 0 up to high dose rates.
This is a controversial model as the LNT model therefore
suggests that radiation exposure from naturally
occurring background radiation, the radiation exposure
from flying at high altitudes in airplanes, the act of
laying next to loved ones for extended periods - due to
radioactive Potassium-40 naturally found in bones, and
the eating of bananas, which are also weakly naturally
radioactive all increase ones chance of cancer.
Moreover, the lack of strong evidence supporting the LNT model, a model created from extrapolation from atomic bomb exposure, and not hard experimental evidence at low doses, has made the model controversial. As no irrefutable link between radiation induced negative health effects from low doses, in both human and other mammal exposure experiments, has been found.
On the contrary, many very low dose radiation exposure experiments find positive (hormetic) health effects at low doses of radiation, therefore the conservative LNT model when applied to low dose exposure remains controversial within the scientific community.