.png)
As a complement to TCASE category, I’m starting another series of posts on the Integral Fast Reactor design for sustainable nuclear power, called IFR FaD (facts and discussion). There are many, many issues worth raising about this Gen IV nuclear power, and I hope to cover them here, in brief, manageable chunks. There won’t be […]
Filed under: IFR FaD, Nuclear | 39 Comments »
This is a general discussion thread where you can talk about whatever you like — there is nothing ‘off topic’ here — within reason. The standard commenting rules of courtesy apply, and at the very least your chat should relate to the broad theme of the blog (climate change, sustainability, energy, etc.). You can also find […]
Filed under: Open Thread | 137 Comments »
“The Nuclear Economy: Why Only Nuclear Power Can Revitalize The Economy And Environment” by Zachary Moitoza, Xlibris, Sept 2009. This is a book well worth getting. First, as a basic spruik, I’ll reproduce the press release and some details about the author, to give the basic background. I’ll then offer some personal perspectives on the […]
Filed under: Nuclear | 8 Comments »
Recently, I published a guest post by Gene Preston on BNC, which examined the electricity cost comparison for remote solar PV vs small nuclear reactors. This generated considerable discussion (128 comments), much of which focused on whether this was a useful comparison in many circumstances; what if, for various reasons, the small-scale nuclear battery is […]
Filed under: Nuclear, Renewables | 62 Comments »
Heat engines require cooling, to turn heat energy into mechanical energy (and then, via a turbine-connected generator, to electrical energy). This is an unavoidable physical principle, and is typically exploited via the Carnot cycle. Usually, this cooling requirement uses water. Why do I raise this point? Because it seems to be a source of much confusion (innocent […]
Filed under: Nuclear, Renewables, TCASE | 49 Comments »
Guest Post by Geoff Russell. Geoff is a mathematician and computer programmer and is a member of Animal Liberation SA. His recently published book is CSIRO Perfidy. ———————————- There’s a gross cognitive dissonance when a Government who professes to think that climate change is the defining issue of our generation can’t face down a few blustering […]
Filed under: Emissions, Impacts | 111 Comments »
Summer 2009 — 2010 hasn’t even begun in Australia, and yet we are already sweltering under another record heat wave — the third in two years. Temperature records for the month of November have been broken across the region, caused by a blocking high pressure system over the Tasman Sea. This follows an abnormally hot […]
Filed under: Future, Impacts | 79 Comments »
Here’s an Op Ed I had published in today’s Adelaide Advertiser newspaper. A supporting piece from the paper’s reporters is here. For more on the British plans for new nuclear power, see here and here. —————————————— WHETHER you are primarily concerned about climate change, or energy security, the British Government’s choice to build 10 new […]
Filed under: Emissions, Nuclear | 130 Comments »
The following guest post by Steve Kirsch presents a persuasive case that cap-and-trade systems (also called an emissions trading system[ETS]) are NOT the right way to put a price on carbon. This is relevant to the US Waxman-Markey bill, and Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme [CPRS]. Instead, a ‘fee and dividend’ approach is advocated. Read […]
Filed under: Emissions | 45 Comments »
Atoms for peace — uranium and thorium power. This is the fit and proper use of nuclear technology in the 21st century, as a means to generate enormous amounts of cheap, convenient, reliable, clean electrify to supply the burgeoning needs of an energy-hungry and carbon-overloaded world. Yet there is no denying that nuclear technology has other uses. […]
Filed under: Emissions, Nuclear | 28 Comments »
The November 2009 issue of Scientific American has a cover story by Mark Z. Jacobson (Professor, Stanford) and Mark A. Delucchi (researcher, UC Davis). It’s entitled “A path to sustainable energy by 2030” (p 58 – 65; they call it WWS: wind, water or sunlight). This popular article is supported by a technical analysis, which […]
Filed under: Renewables | 192 Comments »
 | Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
| Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Cyril R. on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | David B. Benson on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Ms.Perps on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Tom Blees on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Marion Brook on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | grlcowan on Open Thread 21 |
 | harrywr2 on The Fukushima Question: How cl… |
| John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | Eclipse Now on Open Thread 21 |
| Cyril R on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
| Cyril R on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Roger Clifton on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
