gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 4:06pm:

muso wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 3:41pm: If all we had to worry about was blast furnaces, we'd have no trouble.  Personally, I think nuclear energy has to be in the mix, and I think the Greens and the Australian Conservation Foundation are leaving a damaging legacy by failing to endorse it. http://ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm Even a move to gas turbine generation is a move in the right direction. Sorry about your survey thread, Eddie. I'll try to clean it up. Yeah....nuclear should be the way to go...zero Co2 emissions and new designs that burn expended rods....what's not to like??

I dont like the bit about "new designs that burn expended rods" being untrue.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 4:06pm: muso wrote on Jan 23rd, 2012 at 3:41pm: If all we had to worry about was blast furnaces, we'd have no trouble.  Personally, I think nuclear energy has to be in the mix, and I think the Greens and the Australian Conservation Foundation are leaving a damaging legacy by failing to endorse it. http://ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm Even a move to gas turbine generation is a move in the right direction. Sorry about your survey thread, Eddie. I'll try to clean it up. Yeah....nuclear should be the way to go...zero Co2 emissions and new designs that burn expended rods....what's not to like?? I dont like the bit about "new designs that burn expended rods" being untrue.

What's 'untrue' about it???

He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think.

muso wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 2:04pm:

He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think.

Maybe, but even if he was, its unproven at a commercial level, and even if it was, is still priced at the same level as renewables.

Thorium is at the same level of commericalisation as hot-rocks.  I'd rather throw money at hot-rocks to be honest.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 2:40pm:

muso wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:04pm: He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think. Maybe, but even if he was, its unproven at a commercial level, and even if it was, is still priced at the same level as renewables. Thorium is at the same level of commericalisation as hot-rocks.  I'd rather throw money at hot-rocks to be honest.

Actually I'm talking about Generation IV Fast Neutron Reactors..
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html

Combined with a UREX (URanium EXtraction) system to reclaim the uranium from nuclear waste for reprocessing, and using the FNR to burn the unusable or unwanted actinides in the waste....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:40pm: muso wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:04pm: He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think. Maybe, but even if he was, its unproven at a commercial level, and even if it was, is still priced at the same level as renewables. Thorium is at the same level of commericalisation as hot-rocks.  I'd rather throw money at hot-rocks to be honest. Actually I'm talking about Generation IV Fast Neutron Reactors.. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html Combined with a UREX (URanium EXtraction) system to reclaim the uranium from nuclear waste for reprocessing, and using the FNR to burn the unusable or unwanted actinides in the waste....

Does sound good, but the million dollar question is why has this not progressed from the 1950's.  There must be some serious "bad" they are not letting on.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:07am:

Thats only 0.5 degree's.  Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees!

Exactly - imagine. Because that's the realm we are talking abut, the imagination.

If AGW theories were correct and if they had any predictive value, we would  have had a steady increase in warming in the last 10+ years. We haven't. The steady increase on CO2 has not steadily amplified the warmth. Wha' happened? Where do I download the patch to fix this error? What's the current afterthought, the current 'oh, I forgot to mention that... ' fix?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 3:48pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:55pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:40pm: muso wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:04pm: He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think. Maybe, but even if he was, its unproven at a commercial level, and even if it was, is still priced at the same level as renewables. Thorium is at the same level of commericalisation as hot-rocks.  I'd rather throw money at hot-rocks to be honest. Actually I'm talking about Generation IV Fast Neutron Reactors.. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html Combined with a UREX (URanium EXtraction) system to reclaim the uranium from nuclear waste for reprocessing, and using the FNR to burn the unusable or unwanted actinides in the waste.... Does sound good, but the million dollar question is why has this not progressed from the 1950's.  There must be some serious "bad" they are not letting on.

As near as I can tell...it's because uranium is too cheap...Needs high price to justify the expenditure, apparently..

Soren wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 8:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 10:07am: Thats only 0.5 degree's.  Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees! Exactly - imagine. Because that's the realm we are talking abut, the imagination. If AGW theories were correct and if they had any predictive value, we would  have had a steady increase in warming in the last 10+ years. We haven't. The steady increase on CO2 has not steadily amplified the warmth. Wha' happened? Where do I download the patch to fix this error? What's the current afterthought, the current 'oh, I forgot to mention that... ' fix?

10 years is too short a time period to pick any trend of this nature, although the underlying drop in outgoing LWIR emissions can be determined from satellite data. You can put your imagination away. It's there in black and white data.

10 years is less than the ENSO period. You do know what the ENSO period is, don't you?

Remember the bumpy road on a hill analogy? 10 years is just one of the bumps in the road.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:02pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 3:48pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:55pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:40pm: muso wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:04pm: He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think. Maybe, but even if he was, its unproven at a commercial level, and even if it was, is still priced at the same level as renewables. Thorium is at the same level of commericalisation as hot-rocks.  I'd rather throw money at hot-rocks to be honest. Actually I'm talking about Generation IV Fast Neutron Reactors.. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html Combined with a UREX (URanium EXtraction) system to reclaim the uranium from nuclear waste for reprocessing, and using the FNR to burn the unusable or unwanted actinides in the waste.... Does sound good, but the million dollar question is why has this not progressed from the 1950's.  There must be some serious "bad" they are not letting on. As near as I can tell...it's because uranium is too cheap...Needs high price to justify the expenditure, apparently..

So it falls in with most renewable technologies of being more expensive than current coal/nuclear.

The only way to make it commercially attractive is to price coal or old nuclear out of the equation ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 8:19am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 9:02pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 3:48pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:55pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:40pm: muso wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 2:04pm: He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think. Maybe, but even if he was, its unproven at a commercial level, and even if it was, is still priced at the same level as renewables. Thorium is at the same level of commericalisation as hot-rocks.  I'd rather throw money at hot-rocks to be honest. Actually I'm talking about Generation IV Fast Neutron Reactors.. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html Combined with a UREX (URanium EXtraction) system to reclaim the uranium from nuclear waste for reprocessing, and using the FNR to burn the unusable or unwanted actinides in the waste.... Does sound good, but the million dollar question is why has this not progressed from the 1950's.  There must be some serious "bad" they are not letting on. As near as I can tell...it's because uranium is too cheap...Needs high price to justify the expenditure, apparently.. So it falls in with most renewable technologies of being more expensive than current coal/nuclear. The only way to make it commercially attractive is to price coal or old nuclear out of the equation ?

Not sure....I think it's too expensive for private commercial usage....but would work quite well if people really wanted to get rid of the waste....

I'm going to make a new thread for nuclear power.