Well, that sounds comforting, but the supply is brittle. Destruction and enrichment facilities would not see a one year recovery. It would take decades.
Actually, you did not read my link. It contradicts what he is saying completely. He's basically full of it selectively citing outdated work owing to wishful thinking.
Don't really know how much engineering though. If the plants have to be rapidly decommissioned and rebuilt then nuclear power goes from being the costliest option to the twice as costly as the costliest option option.
Gets worse since there would be more nuclear power being used. More nuclear waste accidents like Fukushima. Also, the old ones are not getting shut down and they are getting more and more unsafe. New plants don't help with that.
And yet it burns in practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Perhaps your calculations are in error. Interesting that as the graphite burns in a pebble bed reactor, the fuel separation is reduced. Not so safe that.
However, the rate of nuclear accidents should be accelerating as we rely more and more on aging power plants. The rooftop solar estimate seems unreliable since it assumes 1/6th of all roofing jobs are solar. A look in the yellowpages comparing roofing with solar companies might give one pause.
This assumes that 1/6th all roofing jobs are solar. This seems quite unrealistic. A crew of two can install solar while a roofing crew is often 10 or more workers. And, much of rooftop solar is going in on flat commercial roofs using cranes to further reduce labor costs. The estimate seem unreliable.
Those blow up too. But in the molten salt reactor, not only is graphite a moderator as at Chernobyl, it is a structural element. Very, very, very stupid.
The UK has no uranium mining or reserves and thus is completely dependent on imports for its nuclear energy. Though less is known about thorium, it is not listed as having any reserves here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium Particularly given the many many unaddressed problems with making a liquid salt reactor work (the last one never really did) and the huge clean up cost for using that kind of fuel, there does not seem to be any advantage for the UK to adopt thorium.
The problem has been the cost. No one will invest in nuclear power because half the projects default. They just get into cost overruns and that is it. The NRC will approve a power plant anywhere at anytime but you can't get a bank to lend.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I have to ask, have you ever been involved in a cover up of a nuclear accident?
Well, that sounds comforting, but the supply is brittle. Destruction and enrichment facilities would not see a one year recovery. It would take decades.
But that is not what happens.
Actually, you did not read my link. It contradicts what he is saying completely. He's basically full of it selectively citing outdated work owing to wishful thinking.
Funny, these guys always sound like nazis when they get going. As Indian Jones said "I hate nazis."
Don't really know how much engineering though. If the plants have to be rapidly decommissioned and rebuilt then nuclear power goes from being the costliest option to the twice as costly as the costliest option option.
Gets worse since there would be more nuclear power being used. More nuclear waste accidents like Fukushima. Also, the old ones are not getting shut down and they are getting more and more unsafe. New plants don't help with that.
Changes by an order of magnitude. Don't see what is wrong with the report. It just (reasonably) covers a wider area that the WHO report.
New Scientist is not a journal. The guy is just blowing smoke.
And yet it burns in practice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Perhaps your calculations are in error. Interesting that as the graphite burns in a pebble bed reactor, the fuel separation is reduced. Not so safe that.
Any oxygen source would do.
Did I mention steam?
Or, the entire web site?
The UK also does not grow a lot of tea. We know, to our sorrow, how they've dealt with that in the past.
However, the rate of nuclear accidents should be accelerating as we rely more and more on aging power plants. The rooftop solar estimate seems unreliable since it assumes 1/6th of all roofing jobs are solar. A look in the yellowpages comparing roofing with solar companies might give one pause.
This assumes that 1/6th all roofing jobs are solar. This seems quite unrealistic. A crew of two can install solar while a roofing crew is often 10 or more workers. And, much of rooftop solar is going in on flat commercial roofs using cranes to further reduce labor costs. The estimate seem unreliable.
Those blow up too. But in the molten salt reactor, not only is graphite a moderator as at Chernobyl, it is a structural element. Very, very, very stupid.
Doubt this counts the 60,000 or so Chernobyl deaths. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
Any reactor that uses flammable structural elements can't really be said to be working at all. It is just biding time waiting for disaster.
Why did we not listen to Edison. Where is tradition?
Interesting that Dungeness did not make the cut. That is one of four sites that Greenpeace studied and found problems. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/british-energy-reckons-nuclear-power-stations-are-safe-from-flooding-20071128 The UK does expect to have to use setbacks and dikes elsewhere.
The UK has no uranium mining or reserves and thus is completely dependent on imports for its nuclear energy. Though less is known about thorium, it is not listed as having any reserves here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium Particularly given the many many unaddressed problems with making a liquid salt reactor work (the last one never really did) and the huge clean up cost for using that kind of fuel, there does not seem to be any advantage for the UK to adopt thorium.
If you want a different frequency, move to a different county.
The problem has been the cost. No one will invest in nuclear power because half the projects default. They just get into cost overruns and that is it. The NRC will approve a power plant anywhere at anytime but you can't get a bank to lend.
The NRC chair will be inspecting both flood affected plants on Monday: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304569504576406163159603654.html Perhaps there is something to fear. The situation is uncertain and doubts about the safety of nuclear power are justified.