Below is a compilation of posts I’ve made on Brave New Climate (each with plenty of hyperlinks to external resources for futher reading) which refer to nuclear power and the Gen IV exemplar design, the Integral Fast Reactor Nuclear Power (IFR). Please be sure to also read through the comments sections that follow each posting, as there are many useful updates and Q&A exchanges therein!
Radio/TV interviews
Backstory – Barry Brook on 4th Generation Nuclear Power
Science Show – Nuclear power plants – now safer and cheaper
Counterpoint – nuclear power and the low carbon economy
Newspaper articles
Integral Fast Reactors for the masses
IFR Facts and Discussion Series
Blog posts
Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) nuclear power – Q and A
Response to an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) critique
The Integral Fast Reactor – Summary for Policy Makers (by Steve Kirsch)
A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) deployment plan for Australia (by Alex Goodwin)
Carbon emissions and nuclear capable countries
Recent nuclear power cost estimates – separating fact from myth
Discussion Thread: Should Gen III nuclear power precede Gen IV in Australia?
Al Gore’s blind spot on nuclear power
Why is the US ignoring the Integral Fast Reactor? (by Steve Kirsch)
Hansen to Obama Pt III – Fast nuclear reactors are integral (by Jim Hansen)
Total energy independence in 12 years
Radiation – facts, fallacies and phobias
From nuclear sceptic to convert (by Haydon Manning)
————————————————————————————–
This list of posts also include what will eventually be a 6-part review series of the book by Tom Blees, Prescription for the Planet, which, within its 400 pages, describes IFR and some related technologies (boron-powered vehicles and plasma burners for waste recycling) that together circumscribe the most practical and innovate energy and sustainability solution I have yet encountered. It also looks carefully at how to achieve the energy revolution required on an international scale. It is, in my opinion, the most important book ever written on energy and climate solutions.
Prescription for the Planet – Part I
Prescription for the Planet – Part II – Newclear energy and boron-powered vehicles
Prescription for the Planet – Part III – Renewable atoms and plasma-charged waste
Prescription for the Planet – Part IV – Show me the money!
P4TP chapter 4 – everyone can now read Blees on IFR
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
There is one fatal flaw in the nuclear argument and it is disturbing that anyone who holds the chair of climate change should have not noted it.
One of the reasons climate change is so disturbing is that our various communities lack the resilience to cope with climate change. All that is meant by that is that communities depend on resources that are outside of their control in order to survive.
Solutions to climate change that are dependent on resources like uranium simply shift the problem from one unsustainable resource to another. World stocks of uranium are, at current levels of consumption, likely to run out in 40 years. So if we were to go down the nuclear path globally that would mean it would run out much sooner. Therefore to take the nuclear path would mean that at most we would have 40 years before we face the same problems again.
The attraction of nuclear lies in that it gives us the illusion that we do not have to make major adjustments to the way we live.
The reason renewable energy sources are not seen as a solution is because people bolt those on to our existing lifestyle and in that case they are right. But a low energy lifestyle and a planned zero carbon future do not imply that we have to give up the benefits of a 21st century lifestyle – infact a low energy, zerocarbon future based on renewable can be an infinitely better world than the one we are so reluctant to leave behind.
John Tons: I suggest you read the information posted here about IFR. There is sufficient uranium energy to last at least 50,000 years if the whole world was powered by nuclear energy, and potentially much longer. There is sufficient energy already mined to supply the whole world with energy for a few centuries. There is more than this again in thorium. With fast spectrum reactors, the problem of peak uranium becomes irrelevant for as long as we care to imagine.
The reason renewable energy sources are not seen as ‘the solution’ (they can be part of a solution) is that they require harnessing diffuse, intermittent energy [obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but that is the essence of the problem].
With respect, I suggest you read this blog more widely before making presumptions about ‘fatal flaws’ I should have noted.
“John Tons” helps a number of fossil fuel revenue protection memes to propagate; if he is a real person, he needs to look into his own attitudes. What are his sources, and why does he trust them?
Obviously the cessation of billions in weekly fossil fuel revenue in favour of tens of millions in uranium miners’ revenue has required some of us to make major adjustments in the way they live. So it should have, for on that bargain has depended others’ opportunity to live at all.
As recently said elsewhere: if the Earth had come together from bits of space dust and had then just sat in the sky, unchanging, each dustmote would still be very uranium-poor, perhaps so poor that extracting the stuff would take more energy than could be gained from it.
But the Earth didn’t just sit, and now the inaccessible interior has mostly lost what little uranium it once had, because the stuff has risen towards our feet. Fiorentini et. al, in their paper, How much Uranium is in the Earth?, estimate the continental crust contains 30 to 40 trillion tonnes, and say,
“… The crust — really a tiny envelope — should thus contain about one half of the BSE prediction of Uranium in the Earth …”
That means just about anywhere miners can pulverize a rock, the uranium in the powder is enough to pulverize five rocks of that size.
They would not be able to compete on price with miners who pick spots where the stuff is even more concentrated, and one rock’s uranium gives enough energy to pulverize 400,000. But maybe, 100,000 years from now, all the concentrated deposits will be gone, and that competition will no longer exist; at that time, nuclear power plant operators will have to pay the higher cost, but will be able to continue with fuel extracted from random rocks.
(How fire can be domesticated)
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
John Tons: Jimmy Carter said we only had 30 years of oil left in the late 70’s. Advances in drilling and surveying techniques rendered his prediction utter nonsense. Barry Brook is correct. There is plenty of Uranium, and the world market will respond by exploring for more if we aim at a full nuclear electrical grid. Additionally, we will most certainly discover better energy sources and methods still if we all stop being so hyperintellectual about this and move on to the next best energy source–nuclear. It was General Patton who said, “A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future.” My 73 year old mother told me just last week that when she was in her twenties she remembers President Eisenhower warning against dependence on foreign oil (1957 State of the Union address) This has been talked about for 50 years already!
Scott I could be wrong… but there is NOT plenty of uranium using conventional nuclear technology in use today, which is what I get the feeling you are implying – supply and demand will not create a never ending tim-tam packet of uranium for conventional reactors. As for carter… well late 70s plus 30 is today… and peak oil is a genuine concern so for a non scientist Carter was not too bad.
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
Disappointing to read Barry Brook in The Australian today(8/6/08) saying that integral fast reactors “cannot be used to generate weapons-grade material”. The statement is false and Brook ought to write to The Australian to correct it.
Jim – “Disappointing to read Barry Brook in The Australian today(8/6/08) saying that integral fast reactors “cannot be used to generate weapons-grade material”. The statement is false and Brook ought to write to The Australian to correct it.”
Hi Jim – you might get some argument about this here however I also have concerns about the IFR plants being used to make weapons grade material. As I am about halfway through the book nothing so far has alleviated my concerns.
Have you read this paper?
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2002/07/43534.pdf
“The key to objectively assessing the proliferation resistance of the IFR concept is to recall that much of what Bengelsdorf and Wymer said years ago still pertains in large measure today, i.e., that some elements of the technology still remain to be developed and demonstrated. The reactor aside, neither the recovery of transuranics from the molten salt system nor the remote fabrication of fuel has been demonstrated. Even the concept for transuranic recovery has evolved through two generations since those early assessments were done. For every chemist worried about degradation of proliferation-resistant characteristics, there is another worried about obtaining a product
sufficiently decontaminated to be useful in fuel fabrication. The assessment of this fuel cycle should be an ongoing analysis that keeps up with the research rather than one based on the presumptions of
either the advocates or the critics.”
Hi Barry – I don’t think anyone does dispute that IFRs can produce weapon grade plutonium. Why do you say in The Australian that IFR cannot produce weapon grade material when you appear to be acknowledging otherwise? I’ve read PFTP from cover to cover and my WMD concerns are heightened – to give one example, he proposes using the first fleet of IFRs to breed plutonium for the next fleet which raises proliferation potential by justifying the removal and transport of irradiated materials. Similarly, once the bean-counters have ditched Blees’ idea of on-site processing in favour of centralised processing, removal and transport of IFR-irradiated materials would become the norm.
Jim – I should point out that Barry did not reply to you – I did. I have disputed with Barry and Tom Blees about the IFR and was supporting your viewpoint as it seems to be approx the same as my own.
Both Tom and Barry did insist that I read the book before making anymore pronouncements so I have procured a copy and I am reading it.
Stephen Gloor
AKA Ender
What I said was quite correct. IFRs cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium.
The integral fast reactor is a systems design with a sodium-cooled reactor with metal fuels and pyroprocessing on-site. To produce weapons-grade plutonium you would have to build an IFR+HSHVHSORF (highly specialised, highly visible, heavily shielded off-site reprocessing facility). You would also need to run your IFR on a short cycle. For a nation state that only has IFRs, the very acts of short cycle operation and construction of a HSHVHSORF or Uranium enrichment facility would immediately flag the intention of producing weapons material, since there would be no other reason for doing this. For other nation states that have other nuclear capability, they can make bombs if they really want to anyway, and wouldn’t bother trying to do it with an IFR+HSHVHSORF.
Jim, I accept that you are never going to let go of your anti-nuclear stance, no matter what technology or oversight is available or on offer. There are no conditions under which nuclear power will be acceptable to you. Everything will apparently ‘fail the crucial weapons proliferation test’. So be it. It is as pointless trying to convince you otherwise as it is trying to convince climate change deniers of the reality of human-induced global warming. So I’m not going to try. I’m happy to engage with those who are willing to look at the realities of the energy and climate crises in a more rational and holistic way.
If Jim Green and others who are ostensibly worried about proliferation due to the IFR would absorb what’s in P4TP they would see that their concerns have been more than dealt with in its pages. It is far easier to obtain weapons-grade material from a small research reactor. Ender’s quote about the remote fabrication of fuel never having been demonstrated is patently false. Thousands of fuel pellets were produced during the years of the IFR project.
In P4TP I readily acknowledge that there needs to be international oversight of fissile material in any case, if only to prevent the dirty bomb scenario. The on-site recycling of fuel would minimize that and any other proliferation threat, but of course we want to be as safe as possible, hence my proposal for the international energy consortium to build and operate the plants around the world. As for Green’s casual dismissal of on-site reprocessing as uneconomical, that assertion is baseless. A large IFR complex would need to recycle only several liters a day in a completely modular hot cell. Given that these modules would be produced by the hundreds and would require the same type of electrometallurgical equipment now in common use around the world, the assertion that it’s an economic non-starter is yet another futile attempt to undermine the viability of the IFR.
Barry, would a highly specialised, highly visible, heavily shielded off-site reprocessing facility, be the only way to make weapons material?
Is there, for example, a feature of such a plant that makes it impossible to to hide (considering that the USA have been confused in the past and bombed innocent civilian facilities thinking them to be weapons plants?)
Tom, Thanks for making chapter 4 available to read. It was written very well. And I’m pleased that readers like John Morgan have asked follow up questions.
Barry, you say that for IFR to produce weapon grade plutonium you would “need to run your IFR on a short cycle” and have access to off-site reprocessing – which is exactly what I say. Yet in the same post you assert that “IFRs cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium.” You can’t have it both ways and you really do need to write to The Australian to acknowledge your error.
You didn’t read what I said. That’s not an IFR, Jim. That’s an IFR plus a whole bunch of infrastructure that you would need to build (and somehow hide) to try to turn the IFR into something it otherwise cannot be. You are the one who is in error.
Mark, we’re of course only talking about the hypothetical situation of countries that currently have no other nuclear technology than IFR. In those cases, there is no need for any off-site civilian nuclear facilities for any purpose. Further, as explained in P4TP, the ‘deal’ in sharing and managing the IFR system by something like GREAT is full inspection access.
To which I would add that the earth itself is a proliferation risk. And given its an easier route to a nuclear weapon from natural uranium than from an IFR, its a greater proliferation risk than the IFR.
Its a nuclear reactor Jim, but not as we know it.
Barry,
The Rocky Mountain Inst has a detailed article on IFR, worth discussing?
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid601.php
Actually, no, I don’t think it’s worth discussing. Amory Lovins uses outdated and irrelevant arguments, baseless assertions, and whatever other devices come to hand in pursuit of an anti-nuclear agenda. I’ve tried to reason with Amory and get him to accept James Hansen’s eminently reasonable approach of simply building one IFR to determine once and for all the costs, time to build, and other relevant data, but of course that would give the lie to his arguments. But don’t take my word for it. I frankly don’t like to spend my time tearing apart the arguments of those with a doctrinaire and ideological anti-nuclear position. If you’d like to see a little fur fly in that regard, I would direct you here.
Tom,
Thanks for the links, although it’s a bit weak to critique someone on a 30 year old publications.
I would be interested in specific information about fission isotopes such as Iodine-129 are they destroyed in IFR’s? It seems that this is either true or false, if Lovins has this wrong then he probably has a lot more wrong.
Well, that would only be true if Lovins had said anything new or useful in the subsequent 30 years. Lovins, of course, started out as a spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, and so was entrenched as anti-nuclear from the start (this is where I presume one of his proteges, Joe Romm, also developed his strong anti-nuclear bent). Amory Lovins will NEVER accept nuclear power in any form. Remind you of any other group, arguing a different point, that regularly trolls this forum?
Indeed, some claim that Lovins is a greenwasher for the gas industry. The post “A curious green gas attack” by Charles Barton is well worth reading:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/06/curious-green-gas-attack.html
This is also relevant:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/05/amory-lovins-rides-again-and-speaks.html
Iodine 129 and Technetium 99 are the two long-lived isotopes that are cited. They’re both soft beta emitters that could potentially be separated and transmuted if it was considered necessary. I suppose it depends on whether it’s considered to be worth the hassle and expense. For example, if you would entomb them in glass with the rest of the fission products and bury them in the deep mud of the sea bottom in the location where the Seabed Working Group suggested (see Gwyneth Craven’s excellent chapter on that here.), it would make no sense to bother with them. Or if we decided to bury the glass in the deep salt deposits at the WIPP site, it likewise wouldn’t be of any concern. If you just want to bury the vitrified waste at some random location and are concerned about the extraordinarily slow leaching of a tiny amount of barely radioactive material that would commence thousands of years from now, then plans could be made to isolate and transmute these two elements into short-lived forms instead of entombing them in with the rest of the fission products as-is. This is hardly a deal-breaker. Amory is grasping at straws, as usual.
Barry Brook – “Jim, I accept that you are never going to let go of your anti-nuclear stance, no matter what technology or oversight is available or on offer. There are no conditions under which nuclear power will be acceptable to you. Everything will apparently ‘fail the crucial weapons proliferation test’. So be it. It is as pointless trying to convince you otherwise as it is trying to convince climate change deniers of the reality of human-induced global warming.”
I don’t think that is is correct to compare opponents of nuclear power to climate change deniers. Climate change deniers, the paid ones at least, use non peer reviewed science to back up their ideas. They also ignore or discount the peer reviewed science on the subject of climate change and our role in it. They also ignore or dispute the basic science behind the case for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
There is no peer reviewed science, at least as far as I know, that says that nuclear power is the answer to our future energy needs, nor is a renewable powered future contrary to the known laws of science.. There is however peer reviewed research that says that wind energy at least can replace baseload in certain circumstances.
Your position on nuclear power is your opinion only, equal but opposite to my opposition to nuclear power. Neither Jim or I are denying the science behind nuclear power only disputing that it is a reasonable and safe energy source to power the future energy needs of a technological low carbon society.
Stephen, I’m sympathetic with your drive for renewable power, but there are some factors which make some arguments in this mix, hang on more than opinion.
Barry and Tom have presented a clear case backed up to some degree with various forms of rationale, evidence, and calculations. If we can’t match that with a better case with renewables, than our opinions begin to look less based on logic.
I’d calculate you’ve to good reason to argue for renewables in preference to nuclear in some respects, but I’d prefer that argument to be in reference to more than opinions.
The appeal to opinions is trumped by data that changes people’s opinions.
For example, Barry has pointed to calculations from the WNA which are used to argue Gen II/III energy payback period in the range of a few months to at most a few years. This is at odds with the ISA calculations of 6 to 14 years. Barry thinks the ISA are overly pessimistic. But I believe the WNA calcs are overly optimistic. A rebuttal by a third party says that the WNA calcs are not based on a Lifecycle Analysis. If there is a strong push for Gen II or III, in Australia, then someone might be able change opinions based on clarifying these facts.
Australia is among the best placed to approx 100% renewable. We might be able to do it and remain economically competitive with other IFR fuelled nations. But we should also ask if that will be the least cost route for the environment. It might be, but we need good data for a good opinion.
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
1. Where is your signup for email notification of new articles? I am using a 1996 Macintosh. I don’t have a cell phone.
2. Power reactors make the wrong isotope of plutonium for bombs. Bombs made with power plant plutonium won’t go boom. Proliferation is a red herring, a phony issue. Canadian “CANDU” reactors run on UNenriched uranium, making proliferation a doubly red herring, non issue.
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
Hi All,
Doesn’t this debate needs to move on from the talking of its potential to an actual feasibility for the construction and operation and waste disposal of the type of fast reactor that Barry is advocating.
Barry, just a response to the 10 years objective for a fast reactor in Australia. Realistically can we expect one to be built within 10 years in Australia, when no full scale plant as I understand has been built in any of the current nuclear industry countries?
Lets move this debate on and work out what the real figures of what it would take to build, and operate and fund.
Then we can examine if all the benefits economic and environmental are worth both the economic, waste, proliferation risks and environmental costs.
As a start Barry can you please state a breakdown of what your assumptions and time frames are for the various elements of getting the first reactor up and running here in Australia.
Here’s a start to some of the major project tasks.
Feasibility Study
Political Decision to proceed
Tender process
Tender review
Development of construction organisation
Site selection
Fuel Processing Site Construction
Reactor Site Construction
Waste facility construction
Thoughts?
Cheers
Nick
Thanks for the questions, Nick. Realistically, no, we can’t expect a fast reactor to be deployed in Australia until a fair number have been deployed in other countries. That doesn’t mean we can be building mostly fast reactors within 20 years. It just means that the first fleet of Australian reactors will almost certainly be Gen III.
As to your request for a breakdown, you’ve just requested 9 additional blog posts. I guess I’ll get to them all eventually (I’ve certainly thought a lot about all of the above). But here is a start (the vision thing):
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/29/a-sketch-plan-for-a-zero-carbon-australia/
Thanks for the reply Barry.
Hmmm. (me thinking)
I think the discussion around Gen IV is healthy as it is better regarding waste and proliferation than Gen III. But it then comes back to the discussion of whether any Gen III will be built in Australia prior to Gen IV. (I read through some of this discussion http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/05/07/discussion-thread-should-gen-iii-nuclear-power-precede-gen-iv-in-australia/ )
I would think that the gov would proceed with a first phase of 1 plant ~500MW (roughly?). Ie to prove the industry viability, then look at multiple role outs of additional plants. Would it want to do Gen III probably not because of the waste and cost issues, but it might if climate change effects ramped up.
Thus we then have 500MW nuclear to demonstrate the industry, yet 15 min years for the first IFS to be built here. That sort of initial 500MW can be put on fairly quickly in renewables once a CPRS is up and running, but even now without it the MW are ramping up.
I think the problem here is nuclear will only be really supported if we dont manage to reduce emissions in next 5 years. Possibly to late. But the realities for IFS are a little way off until one gets built somewhere.
Perhaps then the focus should shift to map out the proposal for an IFS, define what industry really needs to be built and forget the Gen III and focus on renewables and energy efficiency. If IFS seems feasible then we can proceed with it, but if renewables under a CPRS are on track then we dont need IFS.
I think perhaps what we should also be discussing is how to come up with solutions to shut down coal plants by some innovative financial measures. Eg those suggested on dertec site are quite interesting for South Australias situtation. http://www.desertec-australia.org/content/sa-4-norplay.html
I’d like to see the economics, climate science and nuclear benefits and costs, renewables benefits and costs stacked up against one another for australia, segmented into say industry development cycles of 5 years to see if modelled what sort of choices can be made.
Until that sort of clear comparison is made (it may be exist) and is open to analysis (ie paid project) not just political sniping we arn’t going to get down to a scientific solution.
Good discussion. Keen to see where it heads. Still concerned about nuclear, but open to the science.
Cheers
Nick
[...] not difficult either, it’s been done already, about 30 years ago. It’s called an ‘Integral Fast Reactor‘ (IFR), and there’s a very good summary of it by Barry Brook in ‘Brave New Power [...]
[...] Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Nuclear Power [...]
[...] IFR Nuclear Power [...]
[...] IFR Nuclear [...]
Meet the man who could end global warming:
http://bit.ly/8Txwjx
[...] Sustainable Nuclear [...]
[...] Sustainable Nuclear [...]
According to Nordell and Gervet, anthropogenic thermal pollution can explain three quarters of observed global warming. Nuclear is part of the same energy problem according to them. See 2009 paper at bottom of page:
http://www.ltu.se/shb/2.1492/1.5035?l=en
cheongi, that’s patent, unscientific nonsense.
David Mackay of U Cambridge, estimates the result of 0.1 W/m2 (worst case) is relatively trivial in terms of climate forcing – total post-industrial GHG forcing is about 2.5 W/m2 (some of which is offset by aerosol cooling and OHC lags). http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_170.shtml
By email, George Stanford said this:
Now, based on our best estimate of climate sensitivity, you get 0.75C per W/m2 of forcing, so Mackay’s estimate of 0.1W/m2 would predict a warming of 0.075C for the worst-case scenario. Currently, our thermal power would contribute ~0.01C to global warming, versus the observed warming of 0.8C. So it might explain 1-2% of total warming, not 75%.
Belief in modelled forcing numbers in climate models is patent unscientific nonsense. A scientist would debate the ideas described in the paper.
cheongi, irrespective of whether you accept the science on climate sensitivity (which is derived from fundamental physics, strongly supported by paleoclimatic studies [the strongest evidence] and supplemented by the emergent properties of models), a watt is still a watt. Nothing changes that.
Averaging total anthropogenic thermal energy across the globe results in a trivial W/m2 forcing (this is arithmetic, not climate models), which is orders of magnitude lower than the W/m2 trapped by additional greenhouse gases (this is core 19th century physics, the foundation upon which modern physics is built).
So it’s patent nonsense. A back-of-the-envelope calculation can show it.
There are varying views on climate sensitivity, which in itself says there is no right answer. More research reveal the true science. Arithmetic will not outweigh empirical research which supports or not any prevailing theory.
Nuclear fission is not natural. Combustion is a naturally occurring process. Bushfires have existed for centuries/milennia without firefighters. What if earth’s climate feedback systems are able to cope with combustion? Soot reduces warming. CO2 has a small effect on warming and IPCC data says its effect is near saturated. Forcing numbers are wrong. It’s just as feasible that “dirty” fossil fuels may not be so dangerous. Nuclear could be worse.
Scientists will continue a healthy debate. Try emailing Nordell and having a chat.
BTW, Nordell and Gerbet’s paper talks about energy. Joules, not Watts. Change in temperature is a function of energy, mass and specific heat.
W/m2 isn’t quite it.
Power (W/m2) is simply energy per unit time (J/s). Time in this case is arbitrary and the problem of forcing in this case is arithmetic (power per unit area of a planet). What are you trying to lecture me on here?
Nuclear fission is natural. Never heard of Oklo, I presume?
Natural nuclear fission in precambrian times several hundred million years ago or more. What was the temperature and CO2 then?
Power is measured in Watts. Electricty in kWh MWh or similar. Time is a required variable.
W/m2 is power per unit area.
What formulae do climate scientists use to compute changes in temperature from W/m2???
cheongi, I think you’d better read this, you’re obviously talking past me:
Energy Primer http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/29/tcase2/
A global forcing of 0.1 W/m2 is, in energy terms, 1.6 x 10^21 joules per year.
Although it reveals that I read CEC emails… today’s gem of a rant was on Coppenhagen… including a claim that it removes nuclear power from the tools available to reduce emissions:
“Page 83 of the 181-page treaty, section 50 states: [Nationally appropriate mitigation actions shall not include technologies that have adverse impacts on the environment, including, inter alia, nuclear power and large-scale hydro-electric power.]
I include the next bit as the CEC are also on the Promethean bandwagon:)
“Once again, the British oligarchy—the modern-day gods of Olympus—are chaining Prometheus,” Mr Isherwood said, referring to Aeschylus’ Greek tragedy Prometheus Bound, in which Zeus commanded that the Titan Prometheus be chained to a rock for eternity for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to mankind, as technology for economic development. ”
Mr Isherwood observed, “Of course, that’s why genocidalists hate nuclear power, but that’s why we love it—it’s Promethean fire for the people.”
What strange company we Prometheans keep… If that is correct, re: pg 83 statement (forgive me for not reading the 181-page treaty), then that’s appalling (but unsurprising).
I didn;t read the document either, and would not be surprised if the CEC just made it up to be honest:) Hmm ok now I did – in the document the comment is in square brackets… lots are, and there is no explanation. So they may be unconfirmed bits, or bits being edited out or not agreed on etc? plus the draft was from earlier in 2009 Bangkok and Barcelona.
An appeal to nature? Please…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
I found the formula (Not in the energy primer):
deltaT = lambda x RF
IFR Gen4 is worth supporting.
Suggest your photo labelled ‘Time to go fission’ be adjusted:
1. Nuclear logo could include of red zig zag arrows pointing inward representing energy in a sure and controlled direction and
2. tree on top representing a healthy green productive and prosperous scene .
3.’ Sustainable Gen 4′ printed around lower edge of logo
Logo can help us have good feelings about the venture.
Article on ‘Nuclear safeguards and Australian export policy’ could be followed up with article showing Gen4 has many easily monitored safeguards. Gen4 needs to be installed as soon as possible to reduce weapons proliferation risks as well as avoid further climate change.
Mark, that was actually something done up by the Adelaide Advertiser. I’d prefer a better image (without the biohazard symbol), but I’m not the guy to make it. If anyone wishes to do so, I’d be grateful.
[...] Sustainable Nuclear [...]