Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm pro nuclear, if this is the nuclear we're talking about.

I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).

>> ^bmacs27:

I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).


The main reason that Uranium plants were promoted was because they produce Plutonium for bombs. Still all for them?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Also, if you're talking about the short to medium-term reduction of CO2 release into the atmosphere - before 100% renewable energy come online - nuclear is a good option.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bmacs27:
I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).

The main reason that Uranium plants were promoted was because they produce Plutonium for bombs. Still all for them?


You didn't seem to understand what I meant by modern. I'd like to see most of the currently operating nuclear plants taken offline and replaced with things like breeder reactors, or passively safe designs. I am for repurposing weaponized material for fuel however, and burning the "waste" problem in reactors that can use them. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd wager burning coal has released more radioactive material over the course of human history than nuclear power plants.

Or we could keep waiting for technologies that don't exist while we blow up our mountain tops to burn our coal. Your choice.

damn... now you got me pumped for future nuclear energy.

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^bmacs27:
I'm pro-nuclear with almost any modern nuclear technology. In fact, if there is anything I'm against, it's preventing the creation of new capacity that could replace old nuclear plants (and maybe more importantly coal plants).

The main reason that Uranium plants were promoted was because they produce Plutonium for bombs. Still all for them?

You didn't seem to understand what I meant by modern. I'd like to see most of the currently operating nuclear plants taken offline and replaced with things like breeder reactors, or passively safe designs. I am for repurposing weaponized material for fuel however, and burning the "waste" problem in reactors that can use them. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'd wager burning coal has released more radioactive material over the course of human history than nuclear power plants.
Or we could keep waiting for technologies that don't exist while we blow up our mountain tops to burn our coal. Your choice.


I'm sorry for the glib response.

Uranium fission still produces Plutonium and a don't trust that all of it will go into power production. Burning coal probably has released more radioactivity than fission plants (slowly and widely dispersed), BUT fission has produced huge amounts of long-term, radioactive waste which is haphazardly stored in an unsafe manner. If even one of the many storage pools is breached the release will completely swamp all other releases of radioactivity by humans.

Fission runs on Uranium enriched in U235. The same process can enrich Uranium enough to make a bomb. Plutonium is produced which can be used to make a bomb. The whole Uranium fission process was originally engineered in order to make bombs. Thorium reactors have never had proper government backing to be developed enough to produce power--any connection between these two facts?

Ohhh, this is great. It is like documentory week on the sift or something, I love it!

I learned a lot more from this discussion:
http://www.metafilter.com/109869/MotherBoard-TV-The-Thorium-Dream

fossil fuels are profitable. first you overcharge for oily gunk, then you tax the people who need energy with a carbon tax

Watching this again

Great reading here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Took me all day to watch this all the way through (had to keep pausing to do, you know, work) but, totally worth it. Very interesting stuff!