- Banned
- #1
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
I don't think there's a source more respectable in the tech field than MIT.
Science/Environment The Coming Nuclear Crisis
- Thread starter Clay Davis
- Start date
- Tagged users None
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
I don't think there's a source more respectable in the tech field than MIT.
- Banned
- #2
Oh, I don't know, Richard Linzden is from MIT.
But, yeah, it's the elephant in the room that the pro-nuclear people keep ignoring - even with 4th gen reactors that use waste as fuel and are much more efficient, you are still talking about a finite resource.
That being said, I think 4th gen reactors are going to be essential for the shift to a renewable energy economy.
But, yeah, it's the elephant in the room that the pro-nuclear people keep ignoring - even with 4th gen reactors that use waste as fuel and are much more efficient, you are still talking about a finite resource.
That being said, I think 4th gen reactors are going to be essential for the shift to a renewable energy economy.
We should take more advantage of the giant fusion reactor in the sky,placed there for our convenience by the FSM
I like this part. But they will charge like wounded bulls.
There is one tantalising ray of sunlight in this nuclear nightmare:
the possibility that severe energy shortages will force governments to release military stockpiles of weapons grade uranium and plutonium for civilian use.
Could it be possible that the coming nuclear energy crisis could rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons?
There is one tantalising ray of sunlight in this nuclear nightmare:
the possibility that severe energy shortages will force governments to release military stockpiles of weapons grade uranium and plutonium for civilian use.
Could it be possible that the coming nuclear energy crisis could rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons?
- Banned
- #5
Wow. 2013. I had no idea it was that close. I have my suspicions about the anlysis though - I don't see any evidence of a production 'peak' that should have occured by now if the figures are correct, there are new mines in development in places like South America that haven't been tapped yet, Australia still has huge untapped reserves, and like people have pointed out there is an abundance of potential fuels like thorium that could be expolited from sea water (although whether that would be economically viable is another question altogether). Interesting read though, I'd like to know what some of the brighter pro-nuclear types think about it, might post it over at bravenewclimate.com see what barry Brook has to say.
- Banned
- #8
The comments are worth reading, not everybody is in agreeance and there is some question over the researchers credibility, though it is often hard to tell who's talking s**t and who isn't on topics as politically loaded as nuclear energy.
So much for my 'no peak' theory though, from the WSJ
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...whats-going-to-fuel-all-those-nuclear-plants/
So much for my 'no peak' theory though, from the WSJ
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...whats-going-to-fuel-all-those-nuclear-plants/
- Banned
- #12
Check out bravenewclimate.com if you want good, intelligent, and environmentally focused arguments for nuclear energy in Australia.
I enjoyed this this recent Slate article that looks at a problem I'd never even considered: how do we warn any people that may exist 100,000 years in the future not to **** around with any radioactive waste we've buried?
Oakland Raider
All Australian
- Sep 29, 2009
- 786
- 13
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Raiderettes
Good read (Slate).
Can't help thinking about the Simpsons. Something as serious as nuclear waste (power) and the dangers are there for all to see, with humour.
People in 100 years will be asking lots of questions regarding de-evolution. Like would it not have been easier, safer and cleaner to use the sun and plants like cannabis for such purpose?
Can't help thinking about the Simpsons. Something as serious as nuclear waste (power) and the dangers are there for all to see, with humour.
People in 100 years will be asking lots of questions regarding de-evolution. Like would it not have been easier, safer and cleaner to use the sun and plants like cannabis for such purpose?
wow, cannabis another purpose for, how can it be deemed illigal in this country with so many uses
Hahah, do presently living (exclusively in a biological sense) people actually concern themselves with what may occur in 100,000 years time?
lol.
- Banned
- #17
^^ The beauty of intergral fast reactors is that the waste that the generate and don't reuse as fuel only has to be kept safely for around 300 years.
Oh, and I liked your old avatar better
Oh, and I liked your old avatar better
- Banned
- #18
I was actually having a discussion about hemp production for fuel on another forum just the other day, somebody was arguing that we could simply switch to hemb-based biofuls and it would solve our problem, but after a quick back of the envelope calculations, based on yield per acre, I figured the US alone would need something in the order of 1.5 billion acres of land to grow enough hemp to meet their annual oil consumption, which is roughly 25% of the N. AMerican landmass, of which only 18% is arable. Biofuels cannot and will not ever even come close to meeting our energy needs, especially when you consider that there is a finite amount of arable land and we have already seen how vulnerable global food markets are to shock, the world would quickly grind to a halt if we took up 1.5 billion acres of arable land simply for energy needs.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #19
More interesting than caring about Africans.Hahah, do presently living (exclusively in a biological sense) people actually concern themselves with what may occur in 100,000 years time?
lol.
Oakland Raider
All Australian
- Sep 29, 2009
- 786
- 13
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Raiderettes
Not sure what illigal means but its grown with permits here in Australia, producing hemp protein powder, seed capsules imported from China etc...
The fuel from this and other plants are already being invested in.
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/news.php
- Banned
- #21
^^ Yeah, but the yield is shockingly low. Something in the order of 2 barrels per acre p/a, maybe four if we are being generous and allowing for two crop harvests a year. Hence why you'd need 1.5 billion acres and rising to meet just America's oil demands.
Oakland Raider
All Australian
- Sep 29, 2009
- 786
- 13
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Raiderettes
Well there's always paper. Plenty of available land really not being utilized as far as i can see. It doesnt have to supply the whole requirement. I dont buy it.
Hahah, do presently living (exclusively in a biological sense) people actually concern themselves with what may occur in 100,000 years time?
lol.
I'm not sure whether you're laughing at the idea that we should take something like that into consideration, or whether you're laughing at the idea that people ever would.
If it's the former, I don't see the funny side.
I'm not so sure. Exploration has only just started again in WA since the last election after 20 years . I know of one deposit recently found near here that is 6 kilometres long that no one knew about.
Considering we are siting on one of the known hotspots (just check out an anti nuke map, they are the best resource) in Australia and there must be heaps of others.
Might be time to buy a block while they are only $10K
One of my young blokes last year spent 3 months doing geophiz and proved up a heap on the eyre peninsular in SA.
Considering we are siting on one of the known hotspots (just check out an anti nuke map, they are the best resource) in Australia and there must be heaps of others.
Might be time to buy a block while they are only $10K
One of my young blokes last year spent 3 months doing geophiz and proved up a heap on the eyre peninsular in SA.
- Banned
- #25
I could be wrong but owning the land wouldn't help you, you'd need a mining lease because a landowner only owns the surface of the land.
