Australian Politics Forum - Nuclear - part of the low Carbon mix?

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Nuclear - part of the low Carbon mix?
Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:21am

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

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:45am by muso »

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Participate in my survey
Reply #1 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:29am

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

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

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 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???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #2 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 2:04pm He's talking Thorium, accelerator based technology, I think.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #3 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 2:40pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #4 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 2:55pm

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

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.

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....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #5 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 3:48pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #6 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 8:59pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #7 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:02pm

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

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

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

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.

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..

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #8 - Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 7:43am

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

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?

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #9 - Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 8:19am

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

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

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

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

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.

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 ?

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Nuclear - part of the low Carbon mix?
Reply #10 - Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 11:01pm

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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....

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:31am by muso »

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #11 - Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:28am I'm going to make a new thread for nuclear power.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged