back to article New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe. New discoveries by US scientists have now shown it's sustainable as well. That's because US government scientists have just announced research in which they've massively …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

To Mr. Lewis, "not harmed"

Mr. Lewis says that "Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation."

Among those "not harmed" are the 160,000-plus residents of Fukushima now warehoused elsewhere. Many of them, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, are unable to find work because of the stigma of Fukushima.

Among those "not harmed" are the Japanese people, who pay for the cleanup of Fukushima Daiichi, at a guesstimated at some scores of billions of dollars. They must pay for the cleanup of between 1,000 and 4,000 square miles of land and forest, radioactively contaminated to a depth of 1 foot. This cost has not even been guessed at, because no one knows what to do with the contaminated soil, vegetation, and buildings. In May, the Japanese had to write a $13 billion check to Tepco, to keep the company from bankruptcy.

Among those "not harmed" are the many hundreds of thousands who have inhaled alpha particles--some percentage of whom will develop cancer in the years to come. Also note the mutant Fukushima butterflies, who were "not harmed" by radioactivity.

You, Mr. Lewis, sppear to be thoughtless, arrogant, and completely lacking in regard for the plight of others. I pity you, but I also don't think you have any credibility left with regard to the events in Fukushima. I think The Register would be best served by confining your remarks to fanciful speculations on military matters.

8
14
Facepalm

Re: "are unable to find work because of the stigma of Fukushima."

I think you will find that is prejudice not radiation.

"Among those "not harmed" are the many hundreds of thousands who have inhaled alpha particles--some percentage of whom will develop cancer in the years to come."

Given that latest figures show 1 in 3 people (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/risk/statistics-on-the-risk-of-developing-cancer) are likely to contract cancer in their life regardless, I'd like to know how you expect to separate those who got lung cancer from smoking etc from those who inhaled those extremely short life alpha particles.

You havent posted any links to back up your numbers on the contaminated ground, so I cannot refute them I assume you just made them up. If it's short life byproducts then there is no need to clean it up, just wait 6 months.

Do I need to say why facepalm?

5
2
FAIL

Re: To Mr. Lewis, "not harmed"

Among those "not harmed" are the 160,000-plus residents of Fukushima now warehoused elsewhere.

They were NOT harmed by radiation; but by the panic merchants and a-scieintists who do not understand risk/radiation (check XKCD for their radiation comparison chart)

Note that Japanese paranoia over radiation would mean they would evacuate Dartmoor; Exmoor and N Wales (and no doubt swathes of granite based sites elsewhere in the world).

This is typical of the damage done by luddites who mus-understand the precautionary principle and demonstrate innumeracy as well.

And note further that the STIGMA of Fukushima is NOT radioactive either; again the harm is done by an ignorant media/political class; encouraged by equally ignorant un educated echo chambers

5
2
Anonymous Coward

using as much energy as a present-day European does

What about the poor Yanks who need twice that much?

1
0
Boffin

Not to worry

Apple are already working on the iRod. Your own personal control rod which you insert and withdraw from the front pocket of your trousers. When worn together with the lead jumper your mum knitted for you last Christmas and maybe a carbon fiber bumbershoot that many of the MPs have started to carry around this year, well, you should be fine.

Then there's the occasional woman asking you, like Mae West, if that's a control rod in your pocket etc. etc.

4
2
Coffee/keyboard

Re: Not to worry

You sir deserve an upvote. Not sure why someone down voted this... possibly a passive-aggressive way of remind you that you forgot to use a sarcasm font or <sarcasm> an Apple staffer realised that you may have stolen their patent. </sarcasm>

0
0
Mushroom

Going Nuclear

Dispite some political pandering, nuclear power is moot. It is, it does, it will. We need it and there's no stopping it. We mostly use fossil fuels for now only because it's easier. And therein is the only real problem with nuclear power. You can't just turn the switch on or off like you can with other forms of energy. That and the safety costs make air pollution a more attractive investment. But you can hardly argue that fossil fuels or renewables are the answer to all our energy needs. Excluding the discovery of some new unexpected source of energy, nuclear power is here to stay... and grow.

1
0
Thumb Down

What?

To state unequivocally that " not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation" from Fukushima denies reality and history. I'm sure you're aware of the babies born with their brains outside their heads in the wake of the Chernobyl accident and the lifetime loss of property isn't something that should be scoffed at. I wish we could get the worlds greatest scientific minds together to figure out how to clean up radiation before some futuristic quest to mine the stuff out of Antarctica.

I'm shocked really that you would open this article with such a spurious fact as to halt me in my tracks stop reading your over simplified nonsense. Put this in your "I can't believe I actually wrote that" file: not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation.

2
5
FAIL

Re: What?

and this very sad case is documented where ?

Apart from which; I don't know how may times people have to be told Chenobyl was NOT Fukushima. Lets try and make a comparison that may get through..

oh -- you can not run your gas boiler/heater/fire because there is a FLAME inside; and look at what flames do to -- pick massive bush fire in country of choice

or maybe

hand in ALL the knives in your house; yes even those blunt ones you have for eating with; don't you remember the GUILLOTINE - that used a KNIFE to chop of people's heads so all knives are incredibly D A N G E R O U S

Go and research RADIATION OSSAGES then compare the maximum allowed levels in JAPAN compared to other nations; go and find out what your exposure is if you live in N Wales ooohhh - it is HIGHER than the maximum allowed in Japan -- oops; so not very dangerous around Fukushima is it - really ?

4
2
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Re: What?

"....go and find out what your exposure is if you live in N Wales....." Years ago I used to live in an old house in Cornwall which was largely constructed of granite and had a solid granite floor in the basement. The house was over two-hundred years old. We were told by the local council that we had to install a radon gas extractor in the basement as it was a "significant risk to our health". Apparently, someone in the council was putting about a figure of 2000 people a year being killed by cancers caused by radon gas! When I asked the family that had owned the house before us they couldn't find a single member of their family that had died in those two-hundred years of cancer. Just because there is statistically a "significant risk", it doesn't mean a certainty, not by a long shot.

1
1

alternative to nuclear from the oceans

Why not just install giant water turbines in the oceans' currents? Lot more powerful and reliable than wind.

0
1
FAIL

Re: alternative to nuclear from the oceans

because they don't work; they are too expensive; and not reliable

3
0

Re: alternative to nuclear from the oceans

Oh, let's think.

Say I want a water turbine to produce 3200MW, like the EPRs destined for Hinkley Point.

Average tidal current in the favourable sites around the UK is about 2m/s, and there's a fundamental physical limit (Betz's law) which limits the amount of extractable energy to about 65% of that in the incident stream of a fluid.

Energy available (E) = 1/2 mv^3, where m is given by rotor area (A) x density (D), so 1/2 * A * D *v3. Include Betz's law (B) to get

A = 2E / (B * D * v3)

density = 1,000 kg/m3.

So including Betz's law, the best possible turbine needs just under 400 m2 of area - or to be about 22 metres in diameter. That's one f*ck of a propellor. Even those on vessels like the "Ronald Reagan" are less than 1/3rd of that size.

You also can't p[ut them (obviously) in water that's too shallow (which is a pity, because that speeds up tidal flows). Or too close together, because you get flow disturbances in their wake. So, to allow for replacing Hinkley Point C, (and adjusting for capacity factors), you'd need something over 4,000 of the massive devices.

Mounted offshore in water at least (say) 40-50 metres deep.

3
0
Bronze badge
Go

Re: alternative to nuclear from the oceans

Engineering problems, all. Roll your sleaves up engineers & get cracking.

0
0

Amortise

There has been a lot of talk recently about how our reckless spending on consumer goods and houses has left a generation in debt. I wonder whether any of you nuclear energy enthusiasts have considered the actual dollar cost per Watt of power produced. The cleanup and decommissioning process is too important a task to be left to commercial organizations as the waste produced must be kept safe for thousands years, so the cost of this type of power must be borne by governments. Does anyone know exactly how much this costs? It seems that selfish short termism has won this argument, only it won't be a generation having their public services cut, nuclear power in its current form will be a fiscal cancer on governments for hundreds of years. Oh and some people might die too.

3
5
Anonymous Coward

Long term effects of exposure?

"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation"

Isn't it a bit premature to make such a prognosis considering that the effects of exposure to cesium-137 (half-life 30 years) won't be apparent for a number of years.

"Record Levels of Radioactivity Found in Fukushima Fish (Tokyo)"

http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/167067675_Record_Levels_of_Radioactivity_Found_in_Fukushima_Fish__Tokyo_.html

"Effects of Radiation from Fukushima Dai-ichion the U.S. Marine Environment"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41751.pdf

"Fukushima three hit by radiation burns"

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/fukushima-three-hit-by-radiation-burns-6384517.html

4
4
Holmes

didn't A Clarke....

predict this a long time ago in a short story within "Tales of the White Hart"?

2
0
Joke

I wonder

Will it power my laptop as the battery I got kinda only lasts 3hours

1
1
Anonymous Coward

I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages The-Register's credibility.

I like the The-Register! Its smart and witty take on the IT Industry is unique and refreshing! But this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages its credibility.

QUESTION:

Why does the The-Register keep giving a forum to this particular author? Who is this writer and what makes him qualified to speak about nuclear power? Is he a paid lobbyist for the nuclear industry? His research and arguments are pathetic! For starters his supplied link claiming "not a single person is set to be measurably harmed" is over a year old! We know a lot more now and its all bad :-

1. Spent fuel pool 4 is nothing short of a Japan-ending crisis!

2. Mutated Butterflies is science that can't be ignored!

3. Fukushima is declared a manmade disaster July 2012. Yes, nuclear can be safe. But human error and For-Profit companies cutting corners collude to make it unsafe!

7
9
Facepalm

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

so why would any one be so stupid as to store spent fuel rods in a pool that wasn't even at ground level ?

Answer : Because the GREENS had prevented the removal of the spent fuel rods to the re-processing plant miles out of the tsunami impacted area.

IF the fuel rods had been removed from site as originally planned; then there would be NO fuel pool on site.

So lets think about that for a moment shall we ? The most dangerous part of the whole tsunami caused wreck was not a failure of the Engineering; nor was it a failure of the design - it was caused directly by the intervention of luddites. Even then; there have been NO DEATHS caused even by the spent fuel rods stored on site because the stupid greens would not let them be taken safely away for processing.

Question : when are the main stream media going to stop playing green wash propaganda ? Probably long after even they realise Green peace get mega bucks from big oil (go on look at Greenpeace's declared revenue streams; you'll see $Millions from Shell BP et al).

Suplemental Question : When are normal people going to wake up to the truth behind the luddite Greenpeace movement; even the founder became disgusted with what they have become; anti west; anti business anti human.

Ojh Let me correct your title : I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages my ability to pretend ignorant luddites have any idea of how science and engineering work

9
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

It was suggested on enenews.com that people like you should be the first to be forced to live beside nuclear plants and eat radioactive cuisine. But my guess is you'd have an excuse to get out of that as well! People like you only ever address areas that conveniently support your narrow arguments. Arrogance like yours created this fiasco.

What??? Nothing say to say about mutations in butterflies or dangerously radioactive fish?!!! People like you never address the wider impacts. You have no empathy for others. I was displaced after the Fukushima crises. It cost me emotionally and physically and financially. But flame away and blame the green movement for all of the nuke industry's failings!

2
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

The CEO of GE is often quoted as saying the economics of nuclear power no longer make sense-- and GE build reactors. So is he a Luddite too? Won't be long now before you're out of work!

1
3
Childcatcher

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

Please yes - build a Nuke next door to my house - just far enough so I can walk to the gates in 5 minutes.

O f course it would have to be a modern WESTERN nuke not some clapped out Soviet design.

Oh I have empathy - I do not want my kids living in an energy starved world it would no doubt be pretty brutal and we know the life expectancy would be back to below 30 in pretty short time.

All this luddism; pretending that somehow or other cheap energy is not the ONLY reason we have so many people living such long (and possibly fulfilling) lives.

Have you any idea of what a fuel starved world looks like -- the dark ages; that's what; Cold; hunger; poverty; short brutalised lives.

Nukes are safe - and have a better safety record than any other form of energy generation. If you worry about CO2 then you should welcome Nukes with open arms; they really do generate the least amount of CO2 per KW/Hr generated.

So; you were displaced by a paranoid government and paranoid people; your exposure to radiation in the Fukushima area is LESS than the that which I was exposed to living in N Wales.

I don't suppose it would help; but for what it is worth you have my sympathy for the trauma caused by the Tsunami; and the over reaction of the Japanese authorities following the damage to the Fuskushima reactors. Luckily the engineers I work with in Japan were all outside the affected zones; though all of their factories did shut down for varying periods.

You all have my sympathy for the terrible impact from the Tsunami; which was/is surely magnitudes greater than that of the Fukushima plant.

Incidentally; if some one prevents something from being done safely; is it 'flaming' to point it out and shed some light on what the primary cause of an incident was - especially as by knowing this; it is possible to prevent it happening at the other nuclear plants in Japan ? And I didn't blame the green movement for all the nuclear industry's failing; just one very specific; documented; piece of luddite lunacy. Wouldn't it be wise to now insist that all spent fuel rods be removed from their temporary storage ponds and sent for re-processing; informing the green movement that their banning of the safe movement of spent rods is inherently far more dangerous than letting them go ? Or is it you who can not see the wider impacts of things.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: I like El Reg, but this type of lob-sided reporting seriously damages

As usual Peter, you're obsessed with Spent fuel pools and Greenpeace but still haven't said a damn thing about the wider effects including mutated butterflies or radioactive fish!

...Happy if they "build a Nuke next door to (your) house " but "do not want (your) kids living in an energy starved world".

How happy are you Peter if your kids have to eat contaminated food? .. That's ok is it? As long as there's plenty of energy, eh Peter?

There's no magic bullet that exists today. We have to accept this and get away from our deeply engrained obsession with GDP and accept a reduction in energy usage and GDP growth worldwide! That way the nuclear option can be dropped today!

0
5
Mushroom

The Lewis Page Paradox

1. Nuclear power is better because it creates no climate-changing effects.

2. There is no such thing as climate change.

8
3
FAIL

Re: The Lewis Page Paradox

Excellent, two downvotes. Proof, if it was needed, that Page's disciples don't actually read his "articles".

2
1
Coat

Re: The Lewis Page Paradox - correction

2. there is no such thing as CATASTROPHIC MAN MADE climate change

fixed it for you

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Lewis Page Paradox - correction

2. there is no such thing as CATASTROPHIC MAN MADE climate change

fixed it for you

Not yet but humans have done plenty to f**k up the planet. Give us time and we'll really ruin things.

0
0
Facepalm

Argh.

Fukushima was not a disaster. The TSUNAMI was a disaster! That killed 100,000 people!

Fukushima was a TRIUMPH for nuclear safety. Natural disaster killing hundreds of thousands, nuclear reactor, though crippled, didn't kill or apparently maim anyone.

I wish people would remember that.

8
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Argh.

"apparently ".. we won't know for years or decades. But even the IAEA and WHO admit there will be deaths!

1
2
Meh

No mention of the downsides?

It may be that Nuclear is a lesser evil than the alternatives, and carbon fossil fuels may kill more, but it's wrong to totally gloss over the hundreds of square miles of land that have been abandoned, and the 250 Billion dollar cost of cleaning up after this one accident.

3
2
WTF?

Noone harmed? Pull the other one! Try 2500 deaths.

Pure bunkum in the first sentence. Lewis, if you believe it is all safe in Japan, I am willing to organise your ticket there, so you can camp out (or live in one of the nearby abandoned villages) near to the broken nuclear power plant. Let's see how far your "nukes are safe" stand goes when it is your health involved.

Here is the alternative view from someone not spruking for the nuclear industry.

"The March 2011 nuclear disaster may cause as many as 2500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford University scientists said. They incorporated emission estimates into three-dimensional global atmospheric modelling to predict the effects of radiation exposure, which was detected as far away as the US and Europe.

''Cancer cases may have been at least 10 times greater if the radiation had not mostly fallen in the sea...There was a lot of luck involved,'' said Professor Jacobson. ''The only reason this wasn't a lot worse was because 81 per cent of all the emissions were deposited over the ocean.''

But what do scientists know, hey? If someone didn't take a photo of the plant's cooling tower falling on someone to crush them to death, then a link to a particular death isn't provable. So it didn't happen. But statistics say otherwise. And health statistics from a reputable scientist have a lot more cred than you Lewis- based on your history of ignoring facts, science, and expert analysis!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/japan-nuclear-fallout-may-cause-1300-cancer-deaths-20120718-22akp.html

The rest of the Reg article could say anything at all, the first sentence from Lewis Page meant it was all tarred with the same BS brush. The Reg should stick to reviewing laptops and printers. Its forays into science are woefully, blatantly biased and inaccurate.

7
6
Stop

Re: Noone harmed? Pull the other one! Try 2500 deaths.

@indulis

So you quote two articles above, one of which predicts 2500 cases of cancer, the other 1300 deaths. That's a little over a 50% mortality rate, which is a little harsh given remission rates for multiple types of cancer in Japan, but lets play along.

According to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 353,000 people died of cancer in Japan in 2010, accounting for one in every three deaths. [source http://www.jcancer.jp/english/cancerinjapan/]

So, assuming their projected figure of 1300 deaths from cancer occur in a single year (it would almost certainly be spread out over a number of years, if not decades, but we'll take this as a worst case scenario seeing as that's what you're apparently concentrating on), then at 2010 cancer death rates in Japan, that would represent an increase of just 0.3%. Taken in another context, the population of Fukushima prefecture in 2010 was just over 2 million [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Prefecture]. Based on that figure, approximately 0.125% of residents *may* develop cancer as a result of this event during their lifetime.

The tsunami itself and its associated damage was responsible for (at last count) 15,854 deaths. [source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9132634/Japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-478-bodies-remain-unidentified-one-year-on.html]

So a natural disaster of epic proportions caused a meltdown of two reactors in an ill-maintained, generation-one reactor (read as 'outdated as all hell') that wouldn't have passed routine regulatory inspections in either the US or UK, which has no deaths directly attributable to it at this stage, *may* (the term used in the study you quoted) cause an uptick in cancer deaths of less than 1% at 2010 levels in Japan if all the proposed fatalities occur in a single year, therefore less than a 0.1% annual increase (not compounding) if any cancers emerge over the period of a decade, which is a more likely timespan.

I'm already paying out the nose for "environmental technology subsidies" every month to my local power co for wind and the like. I'd be far, far happier for the same amount to go instead to the construction and maintenance of a generation-3 nuclear reactor now, or further research into generation-4 reactor technologies. And yes, I'd be happy to live next door to it. Why? Because I understand that the risk of having something bad happen in a new plant with modern technology, trained and experienced staff, overseen by an anal-retentive regulatory body (probably one of few instances where this is a good thing), built in an area that's not prone to floods, seismic activity or other geological or natural disasters are miniscule.

And even if something were to happen to the plant on a comparable scale, I'll take the 1 in 800 odds that the event would result in cancer (figure based on the possible deaths quoted by the study you reference as measured against the approx population of the area).

In return for this, I get reliable power that is a near-zero carbon emitter fueled by an energy source that will be available for centuries, if not tens of centuries if the technology referenced in this article can be adopted. But the general population hears the word "nuclear" and instantly stops thinking rationally. The NIMBY brigade are no better. However, I'm willing to bet that people will change their tune pretty damn quick when our fossil fuel supplies dry up, the lights (and heat) go out, and it's zero degrees outside (that's Farenheit daytime temperatures). Unfortunately by then, it'll be too late.

Your last sentence however is brilliant, considering the content of your post. Have a petard.

15
2
Thumb Up

Re: No one harmed?

"I'd be far, far happier for [environmental subsidies] to go instead to the construction and maintenance of a generation-3 nuclear reactor now, or further research into generation-4 reactor technologies. And yes, I'd be happy to live next door to it."

Great YIMBY reasoning (Yes - in my back yard).

8
0
Happy

Re: Noone harmed? Pull the other one! Try 2500 deaths.

I am going to indulge in some green wash type hyperbole

Have 5000 million million up votes !

I am with you 500%

or in normal engineering type language :

well said sir ! You have 100% of my support

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

5000 years... Hmmm... ...numbers.

5000 years.

Ocean volume (total, as required) is 1.3 BILLION cubic km [Wiki]. So each year we humans would have to filter 260,000 cubic km of sea water through these new-fangled filters. That's 712 cubic KM (!) of ocean PER DAY (!). 30 cubic km (!) per hour. Crazy.

That volume of ocean pumping in itself would require vast amounts of energy. So the whole defective concept enters a recursive death spiral.

0
1
Happy

Re: 5000 years... Hmmm... ...numbers.

i think they'll just use the pumps that they use for changing the sea level at the beach

1
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: 5000 years... Hmmm... ...numbers.

Damn. It's 5000AD, so 3000 years.

Multiply all volumes by 5/3.

0
0
FAIL

Nuclear unadvocacy

"There's no chance of renewables generating the sort of energy the future human race will require to live above the poverty line, so something else will be required."

Never, ever, ever, regardless of an technology advances we may make. It is just plain impossible. Like heavier-than-air flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png

+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wireless_System#World_Wireless_System

= Beautiful madness

On the other hand:

"Nobody's saying that the new HiCap tech can compete with ordinary mining on cost yet - but that's almost irrelevant"

Because future technological advances will surely resolve all our difficulties with nuclear safety, cost, fuel availability and waste disposal. Anything else is Inconceivable!

Look I don't really give a toss about the precise shape of our energy future but it almost certainly isn't going to be coal fired and we need to keep our options open. Nuclear advocacy has its place but can someone less one-eyed and irrational than Lewis Page do it. His rabid illogisms are getting embarrassing.

I think nuclear has potential but it is not cheap (total cost of ownership) and radioactive waste is a genuinely toxic problem that you can't just wish away. I once thought the subduction zone idea had potential myself, shame about reality:

http://geology.about.com/od/platetectonics/f/seadisposal.htm

2
2
Meh

When global warming deniers spruik nuclear power breakthroughs...

...you'd reasonably expect it's tribalism not science.

This of course has nothing to do with the safety or otherwise of nuclear power, it just that coming on the top of the usual unbalanced output of this reporter I would expect that this story is more of the same crud.

Why screw around with nuclear, when there is plenty of coal, if, as Mr Page regularly tells us, CO2 is not a problem, the earth isn't warming, scientists are on the take, it's all just a hippy fantasy, etc, etc, etc? Nuclear power will always be difficult. (OTOH if AGW is real, nuclear power should get very serious investigation. But that means Mr Page has been pumping out BS.)

Personally, I think nuclear is off the real world agenda for a long time. There's a lead time of a couple of decades to get from a current best-and-safest design plan - eg, with breeder technologies, passive shutdown, geological disaster proofing, etc - to actual operational plants. This comes at a cost that private firms are unlikely to feel like investing, unless there are (1) massive development subsidies by taxpayers and (2) guaranteed approval at the end of the big spend, and (3) a taxpayer waiver of the like hundred billion dollar cleanup operation if something goes wrong. These prerequisites are going to be extremely tough to sell to voters. Should a dogey old reactor in somethingastan go pffft during the long development period all agreements are off again.

The descent of the AGW science and carbon pricing into tribal narratives gives a pretty good indication of how much hope the required the consensus for something like a serious nuclear revival has got. And even if this latest uranium-from-seawater tech actually pans out, it only crosses off one of the little problems.

4
4

Re: When global warming deniers spruik nuclear power breakthroughs...

It's a personal agenda being driven by the author, quite possibly due to funding from the nuclear fission "industry". I say "industry" because it actually wouldn't exist without government subsidies, it's never been commercially viable. Nuclear fission is currently more or less dead in the West as we now have more than enough fissile material for our nuclear weapons, the main reason nuclear fission reactors were developed in the first place.

You should stick with physicists experienced in nuclear fission or radiobiologists who've studied the effects of radiation on the human body for your information on this subject, because unlike Mr. Page, they know what they're talking about.

2
4
FAIL

Re: When global warming deniers spruik nuclear power breakthroughs...

" I say "industry" because it actually wouldn't exist without government subsidies, it's never been commercially viable."

Yep, perfect description of solar and wind power.

1
0

I'll say it again...

... because of the way OPEC distributes oil export quotas no-one knows when the oil will run out. Because of the way the oil futures market works a rumour of oil running out would cause as much of a global meltdown as oil actually running out. We are living in a row boat heading towards the Niagara Falls and people are arguing about what colour paddles we should use.

2
0

Story is irrelevant - just the usual chance for the author to give his snide take on Fukushima

Here is something about Fukushima on the other hand which is coming from a scientific and engineering perspective rather than from a defensive Pavlovian reaction to anything even slightly critical of the nuclear fission "industry" :

http://www.cringely.com/2012/05/24/the-next-japanese-nuclear-accident-its-inevitable-will-be-even-worse/

2
3
Pint

Reality check

According to the National Grid, at the moment Nuclear has an output of 8.2GW, wind has an output of 0.8GW.

That makes a ratio for nuclear at 10 times wind on a typical day. Too much notice is taken of wind maximum capacity rather than actual output. Wind power is like buying an expensive pint of beer and being served a few dregs in the bottom of the glass..

3
2
Anonymous Coward

yeah, awesome the country who is one of the worst at recycling nuclear waste and sells it all around the world, spreads it as radioactive ammuntion found a new way to create more.

0
3
Gold badge
Meh

You might like to find out *what* part of Uranium is "depleted" before you comment.

0
0

Less and less dangerous?

I was always under the impression from my limited physics education that radio material got less and less dangerous as time went on due to its half life.

Isn't the fuel more dangerous when its actually dug up but our problem is that we concentrate it all together?

Could we not shred it back down to tiny particles and spread it back through the mines where it originally came from?

Quite a few mentions of wind power, I spent two weeks in Norfolk which has turbines everywhere and for most of that time I would only ever see a quarter of the turbines in the wind farm actually working!

0
0
FAIL

pointless when we have LENR

Fission is a dead technology.

LENR is getting serious credibility now with NASA bring out its own patents.

We should be investing research into this new field where the fuel source (nickle and hyrdogen) will power the human race for 100s of thousands of years!

0
1
Silver badge

Re: pointless when we have LENR

I will use LENR for my autopiloted flying car. ;)

Better use of technology would be breeder fission technologies.. endless fuel, few nuclear contamination.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017