iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

Lftrsuk's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Commented Apr 29, 2012 at 06:10:29 in UK Politics

“Auld and Hawkayethenu - consider a world of declining and unaffordable hydrocarbons and a population at 9 billion, which technology can not only supersede hydrocarbons, but provide all of the energy (that includes liquid fuels for transport and ammonia for nitrate fertilisers), for everybody on the planet (at developed world standards), until the end of life on Earth?

Can you envision your offspring in 2 or 3 generations living in a world at peace, where everyone has energy available for a decent standard of living, when they're depending on interconnected windmills and squares of plastic? With no hydrocarbon back-up, doing this just for the UK, would be like living in a metal rainforest. Dream on.

The arithmetic for breeder reactors proves the technology does everything above. Breeder reactors are inherently safe (they shut down according to the laws of physic in any circumstances). They work on a closed fuel cycle to 'burn' over 90% of the energy, whereas current PWRs only burn 1%. They can burn all of the world's plutonium, spent fuel and depleted uranium stockpiles to produce electricity, making nuclear 'waste' disappear. They produce a tiny fraction of the waste today’s reactors and the radioactivity of that waste decays to background radiation levels in only 300 years. They can supply all the worlds energy for all of time, from inexhaustible uranium and thorium fuel resources.

Watch this video - it's only 20 minutes long. These are sincere men with family concerns. See what you think: http://vimeo.com/35261457
Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Commented Apr 28, 2012 at 07:15:31 in UK Politics

“You are obviously a most ardent renewables fan, Auld Bob. In the fairy tale world that Alex Salmond and your good self inhabit all you do is: plant a 'windmill seed' and a 100 metre high wind turbine sprouts, without any impact on the environment? Can't imagine you've had very much from the 'Tooth Fairy' lately, Auld Bob, but she isn't true either.

Apart from being eyesores and noisy, wind turbines are anything but green - their capacity factors are so abysmal, that for every useful kWh of energy they generate, their construction and installation uses 54 X more steel and concrete than the same energy from breeder reactors. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

Lftrsuk on Apr 29, 2012 at 06:10:29

“Auld and Hawkayethenu - consider a world of declining and unaffordable hydrocarbons and a population at 9 billion, which technology can not only supersede hydrocarbons, but provide all of the energy (that includes liquid fuels for transport and ammonia for nitrate fertilisers), for everybody on the planet (at developed world standards), until the end of life on Earth?

Can you envision your offspring in 2 or 3 generations living in a world at peace, where everyone has energy available for a decent standard of living, when they're depending on interconnected windmills and squares of plastic? With no hydrocarbon back-up, doing this just for the UK, would be like living in a metal rainforest. Dream on.

The arithmetic for breeder reactors proves the technology does everything above. Breeder reactors are inherently safe (they shut down according to the laws of physic in any circumstances). They work on a closed fuel cycle to 'burn' over 90% of the energy, whereas current PWRs only burn 1%. They can burn all of the world's plutonium, spent fuel and depleted uranium stockpiles to produce electricity, making nuclear 'waste' disappear. They produce a tiny fraction of the waste today’s reactors and the radioactivity of that waste decays to background radiation levels in only 300 years. They can supply all the worlds energy for all of time, from inexhaustible uranium and thorium fuel resources.

Watch this video - it's only 20 minutes long. These are sincere men with family concerns. See what you think: http://vimeo.com/35261457

Auld Bob on Apr 28, 2012 at 12:49:40

“Actually I'm not a particular fan, (if you pardon the pun), of wind turbines but have an electro-mechanical history going back as far as 1952. I do know a thing or two about such subjects. As to environmental impact, you too impact upon the environment but I wouldn't dream of scraping you. Those who would ban such things are rather prone to exagerate things out of all proportion. You are one such. Last week the RSPB published a report showing their studies of wind turbines proved them NOT machines for mincing birds. Furthermore, a survey of people in Scotland found 70-80% of people did NOT find them in any way objectionable and the figures for visitors to wind farm information centres had gone up considerably. Furthermore, an environmental study found the claims that wind farns destroyed peatland was utter bunk. The claim that the access roads were built on peatbog is rubbish. They are built upon heather or bracken scrubland as are the turbine bases. For heaven's sake why would they attempt to build concrete foundations on peat bogs? Have you any idea just how deep peat bog is? Then these turbines don't have cables strung between them as do existing electricity pylons. So where is your proof of serious environmental damage? BTW: Almost the entire Highland and upland areas of Scotland were turned into man-made barren wastelands by humans.”

hawkayethenu on Apr 28, 2012 at 09:56:18

“btw I have to say you are being quite selective in your stats are you not?
For example how much energy is used and carbon is produced in simply planning and manufacturing a nuclear power complex? It takes over a decade.

How much in producing and processing, then reprocessing, the nuclear fuel and then for the thousands of years that it will have to be stored and guarded as the most dangerous and toxic waste?

Nuclear reactors are currently standing something like eighty years after defueling before they may be able to be dismantled. That doesn't come cheap.

Whole life costs, financial environmental and security?”

hawkayethenu on Apr 28, 2012 at 09:41:38

“I was up at Michellin in Dundee the other day, and although their turbines are huge I stood almost right underneath them trying to hear this awful racket they're supposed to make, and never heard a sound.

I object to these turbines being painted white because it is sore on the eyes, but these days they are being finished in muted tones and frankly I do not have an issue with those, I am beginning to enjoy seeing them on the skyline.”
Donald Trump Demands Scotland Nix Wind Turbines

Donald Trump Demands Scotland Nix Wind Turbines

Commented Apr 27, 2012 at 06:39:29 in Green

“It's mind-numbingly depressing to think that elected representatives like Alex Salmond, can believe what the renewables industry want us all to believe, that energy from renewable technologies can, as if by magic, have no environmental impact. Other than being noisy and eyesores wind turbines are not 'green' by way of resource use either. Their capacity factors are so pathetic that, for every useful kWh of electricity they generate, they use 54X more steel and concrete than the same amount of power from breeder reactors: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

Alex Salmond had better take a good look at the prospects for breeder reactors in the UK: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/energy-revolution-la-guillotine-for.html He'll still be around in the 2020s and 2030s, when global breeder deployment will be racing ahead and he will certainly have to explain his naive thinking behind the policies he currently trumpet, as he watches the renewables industry decline to a low, single figure % of total energy produced.”

sloop uk on Jul 5, 2012 at 08:42:39

“A link to a site bearing your own user name.
Mmmmm.”

cherokee1934 on Jun 14, 2012 at 23:08:31

“I don't feel that the turbines are all that much of an eyesore. And I don't think that they make that much noise. As for breeder reactors, for get them. I don't think that we will be building any here any time soon and I reposted part of "Seer Clearly" below.

If you are interested in "breeding" nuclear fuel, go check out the liquid thorium reactor, which is neither unsafe nor as overwhelmingly expensive as a traditional breeder.”

Seer Clearly on May 30, 2012 at 03:01:16

“The technology for breeder reactors has been around for 50 years and yet none have been built. That's because they're dangerous due to the need for non neutron-moderating coolants and expensive because of their multiple coolant isolation loops. And of course, they produce plutonium which highly dangerous should it leak out, or find its way into nuclear weapons. After Fukushima, I can guarantee you that absolutely none will be built. To bring them up simply reveals that you have a hidden agenda or are a paid lackey... or are woefully out of date and ignorant about nuclear power.

If you are interested in "breeding" nuclear fuel, go check out the liquid thorium reactor, which is neither unsafe nor as overwhelmingly expensive as a traditional breeder.”
Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 10:26:35 in UK Politics

“Well he could certainly find a better way of spending your hard earned taxes, in his endeavours to create green jobs, if only you could get him to watch this video: http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/watch/?id=f408dd68-5056-a032-52c6-fa004e4a1b02

An energy economics expert will show Alex a supremely efficient way of creating green jobs, which could mean that full employment in Scotland is just around the corner. At 36:54, he says: - "The Green Jobs Rationale borders on the preposterous". To paraphrase: Governments should outlaw the use of heavy equipment for digging ditches and mandate the use of an army of workers using spoons...."There is no analytic difference between inefficient ditch digging and inefficient power generation as tools with which to pursue increased employment"”

Auld Bob on Apr 28, 2012 at 06:51:11

“Absolute tosh! I'm sorry to tell you this but your experts aren't very expert. Nuclear is the dirtiest fuel of all. Not even the actual reaction is clean as it generates highly toxic waste that remains active literally forever. A half-life of thousands of years only halves it. Fuel is mined, milled, processed and enriched. All massive users of power and fossil fuels. The mine waste is radioactive and is soluable in water so gets into the local watertable. The Power stations are not only the most expensive to build but also to run and the fuel must be re-processed and eventually must be stored and looked after forever. Oil, gas and coal are dirty. Hydro, tide, wave, sea currents and biomass are all good. Nuclear is no use for load shedding as it takes weeks to go on and off line. .”

Alexicon on Apr 25, 2012 at 17:39:47

“It seems my polite and un insulting reply to you has been pulled by the mods on here.”
Donald Trump Wind Farms: Billionaire To Appear In Holyrood To Fight Against Turbines

Donald Trump Wind Farms: Billionaire To Appear In Holyrood To Fight Against Turbines

Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 07:35:36 in UK Politics

“What about witness's views on the impact of renewable energy on the environment, apart from being eyesores and/or noisy. Do Alex Salmond and wind turbine supporters think that all you do is plant a 'windmill seed' and a 100 metre high wind turbine sprouts, without any impact on the environment? Wind turbines are anything but green - their capacity factors are so abysmal, that for every useful kWh of energy they generate, their construction and installation uses 54 X more steel and concrete than the same energy from breeder reactors. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html
Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Donald Trump: 'Wind Farms Will Destroy Scotland'

Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 07:18:57 in UK Politics

“Does Alex Salmond's 'ownership of Scotland' give him the right to imply to the Scottish electorate that all you do is plant a 'windmill seed' and a 100 metre high wind turbine sprouts, without any impact on the environment? Wind turbines are anything but green - their capacity factors are so abysmal, that for every useful kWh of energy they generate, their construction and installation uses 54 X more steel and concrete than the same energy from breeder reactors. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

hawkayethenu on Apr 28, 2012 at 09:33:29

“Nuclear stations only make economic sense running at full power and gey few manage that for any length of time.
Plus for a nuclear power station's working lifespan of thirty to forty years the community is burdened with highly dangerous waste for thousands of years that has to be constantly monitored and guarded from falling into the wrong hands. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

The real reason we need more nuclear power is so that Whitehall can play with the big boys, projecting nuclear force, they have to have a source for nuclear bomb material.
Or are we like Iran and North Korea, our nuclear program is purely for civilian use?”

Auld Bob on Apr 28, 2012 at 06:31:49

“Absolute bull! First up Salmond is only the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. His party were elected by the people of Scotland and his Parliamentary MSPs elected him First Minister and his SNP party members elected him Leader of the party. That does not make him a dictator. Secondly your supposed information about wind turbines is tosh. Obviously written by those with no real idea of engineering, science or the electricity grid system. Here are just three real facts. Nuclear is a dirty fuel, it is the most subsidised and ALL generation types are paid to go off-line at off-peak load shedding.”

Alexicon on Apr 25, 2012 at 09:35:44

“So I take it nuclear power stations is your preferred option?
I hope you remove all the low wattage light bulbs from your home. Every little helps you know.
I'm a Scottish electorate and I don't see Alex Salmond as the owner of Scotland.”
Bronte Sisters: Campaigners' Bid To Save Thornton Moor From Wind Turbines

Bronte Sisters: Campaigners' Bid To Save Thornton Moor From Wind Turbines

Commented Apr 6, 2012 at 17:52:39 in UK

“Wind turbines, green they are not: http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=238

Just see how much concrete and steel they use per kWh generated, compared to nuclear power. Greenpeace members note: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html
Michigan Green Jobs: State Ranks 12th For Environmentally-Friendly Jobs

Michigan Green Jobs: State Ranks 12th For Environmentally-Friendly Jobs

Commented Mar 30, 2012 at 14:20:32 in Detroit

“"Environmental groups touted the 3.1 million green jobs nationwide as proof of their importance to the country's economic growth."

Way to go Environmental Groups! But see a super-efficient way of creating green jobs. A few days ago, an economics expert gave a statement to a Senate Finance Subcommittee, revealing a technique which I'm hoping Greenpeace will adopt, as it will surely enhance the effectiveness of their 'Energy [R]evolution' policy: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/millions-of-green-jobs-lets-dig-ditches.html
Ohi Nuclear Plant Reactor No. 3 Generating Electricity

Ohi Nuclear Plant Reactor No. 3 Generating Electricity

Commented Jul 5, 2012 at 07:54:35 in World

“When is the world going to dump this flawed LWR technology, which gives so much ammunition to the anti-nuke brigade and is so distrusted by the general public?

Over here in the UK we have a great opportunity to get into molten salt reactor technology, by reproducing a scaled up version of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), in order to burn our plutonium stockpile. Why give the cash to GEC Hitachi for their PRISM reactor, when we can have a British-Made reactor to do the same job.

We have the design/technological expertise and the manufacturing capacity to make these reactors, which are no more than 'glorified' hot-salt chemical plants. Does our nuclear industry have to sit on the side lines and watch PWRs being 'imported'?

Google lftruk to get behind this technology.”

GRLCowan on Jul 5, 2012 at 09:57:04

“"When is the world going to dump this flawed LWR technology, which gives so much ammunition to the anti-nuke brigade and is so distrusted by the general public? "

You give the public too little credit. They are not represented by the spectrum of opinion we get here.

All technologies are flawed, and it wouldn't matter if no LWR anywhere had ever done the slightest harm to any LWR neighbour anywhere .. oh wait, none ever *has* ... the "antinuke brigade" would still have plenty of ammunition. It's called fossil fuel money.

I appreciate you would rather have a molten salt reactor built over your back fence than an LWR, but would you also rather have a gas pipeline and a turbine plant burning the gas there? Because we know that's what they're lobbying for.”
Nuclear And Coal Power Face Future Cooling Water Shortages, Study Suggests

Nuclear And Coal Power Face Future Cooling Water Shortages, Study Suggests

Commented Jun 4, 2012 at 12:48:42 in Green

“Let coal decline - we all want it to. But for nuclear, the answer is so simple - generate our electricity and process heat using high temperature reactors which, if the 'waste' heat can't be put to a useful purpose, can be air cooled. However, high temperature 'waste' heat can be used to desalinate, to produce vast quantities of potable water from brackish groundwater and seawater. It can also be used to implement a hydrogen economy, whereby all liquid fuels can be made carbon neutral, by using atmospheric CO2 in their production. Likewise carbon-neutral ammonia can be made from atmospheric N2 and used as feed stock for fertilisers, to maintain agricultural production to feed 9 billion people. There is one outstanding reactor that can do all of this and also is inherently safe - it shuts down according to the laws of physics, even if all safety systems and all electrics are lost. The fuel in the reactor core starts life in the molten state, so no more TMI or Fukushima-Diiachi style meltdowns. It operates at atmospheric pressure, so there is no high powered 'driver' available to expel radiotoxic substances upwards and outwards into the environment. Also, its fuel is thorium - 3½ X more common than uranium and in sufficient abundance to be economically available until the end of time. This silver-bullet answer to the most significant problems facing humankind, is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Google: LFTRs to Power the Planet for all of the benefits.”

plans includingdog on Jun 4, 2012 at 13:11:06

“Thorium is one of the most common.Sounds like a good idea.”
Community Power vs. the Kochs

Community Power vs. the Kochs

Commented May 8, 2012 at 13:43:44 in Green

“It is weird that the only true renewable and sustainable energy technology - the breeding of fissile fuel, from uranium and thorium, for power generating breeder reactors - is not even on the radar of apostles of 'conventional' renewable energy.

In a climate of increasing scarcity and cost of hydrocarbons, where energy demand is to go up by 40%, world events may 'force' the beginning of the global deployment of breeder reactors as early as the 2020s.

The clamour is for emission-free energy technologies to protect our planet for our children and grandchildren. No sane parent can believe in their heart of hearts that the continental interconnection of windmills and squares of plastic can accomplish that, in an equitable manner that will maintain peace and prosperity.

Breeder reactors can supply all of the energy (including liquid fuels for transport) to every individual on the planet (at developed world standards) for all of time (from inexhaustible uranium and thorium deposits).

The only decision peoples of each nation needs to make is - will their breeder reactor of choice be LMFBRs or MSBRs? - http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html

MrBIgp on May 9, 2012 at 12:41:07

“You are expecting Americans to be rational - dream on.”
Japan's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Efforts Eroded By Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Japan's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Efforts Eroded By Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Commented May 4, 2012 at 14:35:53 in Green

“A sneaky little segue into breeder reactors. After a ministerial pronouncement of Japan’s options for its nuclear future, Nuclear [R]evolution may just be about to start there: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/this-is-japan-were-talking-about.html

Any industrialised nation needs 24/7 base load electricity for its urban dwellers, its industry and commerce and, resource-less Japan needs energy security more than most. Inherently safe, affordable and emission-free breeder reactors are the inevitable answer for Japan, with deployment capable of commencement in the 2020s.

The only decision Japan's electricity consumers have to make is: will it be LMFBRs or MSBRs: - http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html

strangiato on May 4, 2012 at 21:28:59

“The only decision Japanese citizens need to make is:

Do we continue listening to nuclear industry spin masters trying to spin 45 year old environmentally harmful technology as "new safe technology" or do we stop listening to them and put them to work cleaning up the enormous mess they've caused?

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf
Donald Trump Warns Alex Salmond Wind Farms Will End Independence Dream

Donald Trump Warns Alex Salmond Wind Farms Will End Independence Dream

Commented May 3, 2012 at 15:12:57 in UK Politics

“In March 2011, a report was issued about the actual delivery of electricity from wind farms to the National Grid over a 2 years and 2 months period. On average, every 6 days, for a 5 hour spell, the electricity delivered was less than 1¼ % of the average amount of electricity delivered over the full period. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/wind-energy-wanna-be-lievers-whats.html

A simple question to Mr Salmond - At the point in time, when you announce to the world that Scotland now runs on 100 % 'home-grown' renewable energy, on every 6th days, for 5 hours, will you get 98¾ % of the energy you need to run the country from Scotland's 'home-grown' back-up energy resources?

If not, isn't your policy, to put it kindly, disingenuous?”
The Speech That Never Was - A Missed Opportunity to Re-Energise the Economy

The Speech That Never Was - A Missed Opportunity to Re-Energise the Economy

Commented Apr 26, 2012 at 09:14:13 in UK Politics

“Of course David Cameron still has the opportunity to lead the greenest government ever, because he has support from people who know what they're doing. Just like the rest of us, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have convinced him that all they do is plant a windmill seed and a 100 metre high turbine sprouts, with no damage to the environment.

The capacity factors of wind turbines are so abysmal, that for every kWh of useful power they generate, they use 54 X more steel and concrete, in their manufacture and installation, than the same power from breeder reactors: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

90% of urban growth is occurring in the developing world, adding 70 million people per annum. It's almost criminal that policy makers of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are allowed to continue with their ridiculous propaganda of supplying energy to the urban poor from renewables. And all the time, they are baulking the efforts of the technological pragmatists to get global deployment of breeder reactors underway.

In a world of increasingly expensive and declining hydrocarbon resources, only global deployment of emission-free and inherently safe breeder reactors can supply ALL of the energy needs of everyone on the planet, until the end of time - or at least for the 5 billion years the Sun has left: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html
Iran Nuclear Crisis -- Disruptive Diplomacy, Not Shock and Awe

Iran Nuclear Crisis -- Disruptive Diplomacy, Not Shock and Awe

Commented Apr 15, 2012 at 12:02:41 in World

“"Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution scenarios -- developed over many years with leading scientists and engineers -- shows how we can avert catastrophic climate change, phase out nuclear power and transition to a clean energy system based on smart (efficient) use and renewable energy sources".

There will come a time, in the 2020s and 2030s when the inevitability of global deployment of breeder reactors will be witnessed in an ever accelerating fashion. The only decision elected representatives or heads of state will have to make is - "do we choose Fast/Solid-Fuelled/Liquid Metal ones or Thermal/Liquid-Fuelled/Molten Salt ones?" See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html

I wrote a personal letter to Kumi Naidoo, beseeching him to get Greenpeace membership behind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) to persuade the powers that be that Molten Salt Breeders are by far the safest and most affordable choice, when the time comes.

I got the 'Party Line' reply spouting, with utmost conviction' that the insane and socially destructive 'Energy [R]evolution' would do the trick. It is demoralising to think that people in their commanding positions, with the control of such a powerful membership can believe such tripe.

When there is nowhere else but the dustbin of history for their 'Energy [R]evolution' policy, I hope Greenpeace leaders have the courage to admit to their membership that they were wrong all along.”
Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Commented Apr 9, 2012 at 06:42:20 in Green

“I don't seem able to reply to aldvh1 10:38 reply to my post 05:57 AM on 04/06/2012. Has he shut me out somehow? Well I need to reply anyway, because it gives me my first data point in my new research project: "The attitude of anti-nuclear campaigners towards radiotherapy treatment, when they get cancer"

aldvh1 - I think that's a yes. Very interesting; but still no apparent moderation of your views, which can be summarised as - 'Never mind the science, it's scary'. All I need now, to make this a worthwhile bit of research, is a response from every one of your fans.”
Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Commented Apr 8, 2012 at 11:54:29 in Green

“If you or any of your nearest and dearest get cancer, will you personally turn away from the curative treatment of tumours by radioactive isotopes, the dangers of which you rant about? Will you advise others to do so?

It's as straightforward as any paradox can get, because if you know in your heart you would accept radiography in those circumstances, then you must modify your condemnation of the dangers of low-dose radiation, if not your condemnation of nuclear power generation.”

alvdh1 on Apr 8, 2012 at 22:38:57

“Fella, please don't use false linkage with me. My decision to accept radiotherapy would be a voluntary decision. Forcing radioactive poison on the population is involuntary. You are a classic nuclear troll who apparently cannot distinguish between voluntary and involuntary poisonings. Therefore, get a life and stop using false linkage.”
Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Commented Apr 6, 2012 at 16:53:08 in Green

“I take it that's a -- maybe --! Ever wondered where they get the radioisotopes from, to cure tumours? Come on let us also have your honest responses, you 351 fans - this will make a great piece of research! Please check out first the link to contradictory evidence to the LNT theory - the backbone of your irrational fears and vituperation.”

Genders on Apr 17, 2012 at 22:11:52

“Accelerators.”

alvdh1 on Apr 7, 2012 at 12:29:37

“You must be referring to the bogus theory of hormesis.”
Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Commented Apr 6, 2012 at 05:57:28 in Green

“A really worthwhile piece of research would be to establish how many - it should be about 3 in a thousand - members of Greenpeace will turn away from the wonderful healing properties of radiotherapy, when they get cancer? More to the point, how many of the rabid anti-nuclear commentators on this site (surely Greenpeace wouldn't acknowledge that such lunatic views represent their policies) will turn away from it? Come on - be honest and let's have a reply from every one of you; will you put your money where your mouth is when the grim reaper is knocking at Your door?
See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/new-take-on-impacts-of-low-dose.html

alvdh1 on Apr 6, 2012 at 10:11:43

“You are making an absurd false linkage between health care and nuclear power poison factories, which only serves to demonstrate the great lengths the nuclear power poison factory merchants will go to sell their poisoned power.”
Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Commented Apr 4, 2012 at 06:00:57 in Green

“It's up for discussion in Parliament, but a decision based on the oustanding merits of this course of action will take one or two decades. Meanwhile, we have committed £billions to 16 GW of Pressurised Water Reactors - common sense and the courage to override 'expert advice' is in short supply amongst our representatives.”
Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Nuclear Power and Democracy Don't Mix

Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 13:04:31 in Green

“".....Yet, I have been to Chernobyl. I have been to Fukushima. I can tell you firsthand of the devastation, of the ruined lives, and of the ongoing lies and cover-ups surrounding these nuclear power disasters....."

In April 1986, the US media's obsession with Chernobyl 'drowned out' a Fukushima-type incident at an American nuclear power plant: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/1986-us-medias-coverage-of-chernobyl.html

Jtt on Apr 4, 2012 at 06:36:59

“Have you been to the 600 plus US coal plants. Have you been to the worlds glaciers and oceans? Have you been to every US waterway contaminated with mercury? What a loaded and irresponsible comment.

A power plant, cancer and a small town's fears

The second house, also across from Plant Scherer, was owned by a couple. According to neighbors, the woman suffered from a form of stomach cancer, and she told neighbors before the buyout it too was diagnosed as environmentally caused. CNN reached that family as well -- they, too, refused to comment.

Almost immediately after Georgia Power purchased that house, the company sealed the on-site water well.

"My hair is 68 parts per million uranium," Welch says. "And then my husband started breaking out in disfiguring hives. His kidneys started acting really bizarre."

Welch says her doctor linked the family health problems to uranium poisoning. The uranium was traced to a water well on her property. ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/31/us/georgia-coal-power/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1 )

If a Nuclear power station emitted a trace of a TRACE of these toxins AND Radioactive substances it would be shuttered forever. Coal power was built everywhere for 4 decades because of irrational nuclear fear.”

PoloniumMan on Apr 3, 2012 at 19:26:42

“So are people in the UK open to constricting PRISM reactors to burn up the leftover weapons' plutonium?”
Green Jobs and Educating the Sustainability Managers of the 21st Century

Green Jobs and Educating the Sustainability Managers of the 21st Century

Commented Mar 29, 2012 at 12:16:40 in Green

““....As in anything new and cutting edge, I'm confident we are making our share of mistakes. However, we are approaching the new field of sustainability management as scholars, educators, practitioners and students.... ”

Only a couple of days ago an economics energy expert gave a statement to a Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy on the creation of green jobs. He revealed the most efficient way ever of creating green jobs, which could save the US $billions: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/millions-of-green-jobs-lets-dig-ditches.html
huffingtonpost entry

Providing Clean Water and Fighting Cholera in the Congo

Commented Mar 22, 2012 at 19:00:45 in World

“Many countries and regions suffering shortages of potable water may, coincidentally, need to be investing in power generation. The powers that be, in those localities, need to know that technologies exist to generate power and produce high temperature 'waste' heat capable of efficiently powering desalination plants free-of-charge. Potable water, in huge quantities can be produced from brackish groundwater and sea water. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/more-potable-water-as-important-as-less.html

It is worth noting that conventional coal and nuclear power stations have to be sited near bodies of water and consume large quantities, whereas, if only power generation is required, the technology described in the above link can be air-cooled and so is deployable in arid regions.

Anybody worried about the equitable availability of potable water should consider staunch support of this essential power source.”
huffingtonpost entry

Renewable Energy Water Use May Be Higher Than Conventional Methods

Commented Mar 19, 2012 at 06:42:32 in Green

“"you read up on all the reason LFTR WON"T solve the problems? You read some pr thing and were convinced".

Alvin Weinberg invented PWRs and is the beginning and end of the most widely employed form of current nuclear power generation. See his opinion on Molten Salt Reactor Technology and in particular the Breeder form. LFTRs are the best configuration of Molten Salt Breeder Reactor for commercial power generation. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/p/benefits-of-lftrs.html

daryanenergy - a great critique??? Well he has the answer to solving the world's energy needs: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/dylan-ryan-of-glasgow-age-32-speaks.html

Genders on Mar 19, 2012 at 17:08:49

“So you trust the guy who invented the disastrous PWR reactors we have today that are just a cooling system away from melt downs? WOW, Gullible.

Why don't you read Dary's rebuttal to the rebuttal, it's right there.

Try dealing with any of the real issues, like waste, of corrosion or thistledown, or disasters will spread radiation,

and there are no helium turbines, and they are not easy, do they probably will cost more than the reactor.

The processing system has never been built.

Nukes are already more expensive than solar, and waste bio char can provide all the backup we need.

It will be some 20 years before the first LFTR could be built, by then solar panels will probably be cheaper than paint.”
huffingtonpost entry

Renewable Energy Water Use May Be Higher Than Conventional Methods

Commented Mar 15, 2012 at 18:27:12 in Green

“"....A Global Environment Facility report, also published this week, estimated that an average, 1 gigawatt thermal power plant (burning fossil fuels or using nuclear power generation) used the equivalent of 25 Olympic-sized swimming pools a day...."

It's not necessarily so. You can have a 1 GWe nuclear power plant air-cooled, if it's the right technology. You can also use the high temperature 'waste' heat to power desalination plants free-of-charge. See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/2012/03/more-potable-water-as-important-as-less.html

Genders on Mar 18, 2012 at 21:52:59

“Yes it is. air cooling is much more expensive, and nukes are already more expensive the rooftop pv water less solar, twice offshore water less wind, and 4 times water less efficiency.

LFTR are a fantasy. actually another nightmare. Just more promises from the industry that brought you trillion dollar nuke disasters, million year cancerous waste, and civilization ending proliferation?

Why haven't you read up on all the reason LFTR WON"T solve the problems? You read some pr thing and were convinced.

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf Not the answer, and waste still need million year storage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/8-4-the-isotope-separation-plant/
great critique of LFTR an nuke power in general

Pro LFTR article also shows how bad LWR is and how the LFTR waste still needs to be stored for 300 years.
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf

And here is an article on the MANY technical problems yet to be solved to build a LFTR
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/15/568428/-MSR-LFTR-Developmental-Issues

proof if you needed it that LFTR reactors are not ready to go:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/multiMissionMSR.html”
next
1 - 25