.png)
Want to know more about the Integral Fast Reactor technology from the comfort of your lounge room chair? Then these two fascinating videos, recently transcoded and uploaded by Steve Kirsch to the “ifr.blp.tv” website, are for you. You can watch online, or download in .MP4 format (choose the format and then the download link below) […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, IFR Facts and Discussion, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 32 Comments »
I’m about to fly out for a 3-week trip to the US and China (24 July to 15 Aug). But fear not! The BNC blog will remain active over that time. Indeed, there are quite a number of new posts in the pipeline for this period, including guest pieces by Rob Parker (this Sunday), Geoff […]
Filed under: Ecological impacts, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 11 Comments »
In a newspaper Op Ed last year, I wrote the following: Imagine someone handed you a lump of silvery metal the size of a golf ball. They said you might wish to put on some plastic gloves to hold it, although that would not be necessary if you washed your hands afterwards. You look down at […]
Filed under: IFR Facts and Discussion, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 162 Comments »
This is a Discussion Thread, because I really want your feedback. But first, some context. By late 2008, I was pretty stressed about climate change. Working on the science of climate (and other anthropogenic) impacts on natural systems, as I do, I could foresee potentially insurmountable problems for biodiversity and human civilisation this century. A […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’), Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 456 Comments »
Another crisp piece from Steve Kirsch on HuffPo that I’d like to reproduce on BNC, for completeness. (For his other posts on the IFR, click here). If you want to get emissions reductions, you must make the alternatives for electric power generation cheaper than coal. It’s that simple. If you don’t do that, you lose. […]
Filed under: Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 108 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 reduction | Tagged: | 44 Comments »
Steve Kirsch, after discussions with a large number of the principal researchers on Argonne National Laboratory’s IFR project, has prepared his ‘one stop shop’ summary of the Integral Fast Reactor technology (sometimes referred to as the ‘Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor’ [LMFBR] or the ‘Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor’ [ALMR], although in reality, the IFR is […]
Filed under: Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 102 Comments »
Concerns continue to mount over climate change — driven by spiralling carbon emissions, dwindling global oil supplies — fomenting ongoing regional conflicts, air pollution — including sulphates and soot leading to chronic health problems, degraded waterways and forests — caused by acidification and heavy metal pollution. The list goes on, and these are just the […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 60 Comments »
I’m in Japan this week, attending the 1st Asian Heads of Research Council Joint Symposium in Nagoya, with a follow-up workshop for training junior researchers later in the week. This is my fifth trip to Japan, but it’s always an exciting place to visit. Today, after an intensive morning session at which I gave a […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 38 Comments »
Here is the follow-up post on the IFR by Steve Kirsch. The first can be read here. This is long (loooong), but it really says it all. Steve worked on a tonne of revisions to this piece before finally submitting this to HuffPo. It has been checked and confirmed by a bunch of the key […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 49 Comments »
Here is something written by Steve Kirsch, and published recently on the Huffington Post. It is obviously highly relevant to our discussions on IFR and ETS bills in Australia, so I thought BNC readers would find it of interest. I’ll ask Steve if he wants to join in the commentary herein… Waxman-Markey: Three Tough, Unanswered […]
Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 37 Comments »
For those who do not yet have the book (tsk, tsk), you can now read Chapter 4 of Prescription for the Planet, “Newclear Power”, by downloading it here. Tom Blees has generously decided to put this chapter (pg 117 — 139) on the web to allow a more rapid dissemination of the basic facts about […]
Filed under: Hot news in climate science, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 38 Comments »
Most of the information you need to become ‘clued up’ on Integral Fast Reactor nuclear power is in written form of one sort of another: books, popular science articles, blog posts, and so on. But there’s plenty more out there. One fun way to get some ‘passive learning’ is to sit back and let your […]
Filed under: Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 12 Comments »
There was both interest and confusion over at the ABC Unleashed site when I wrote my first piece there on nuclear power. Going by the comments, most folks who were traditionally anti-nuclear continued to harbour their old beliefs and misconceptions about the technologies involved, even after reading my short piece. I did briefly (in one […]
Filed under: Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 145 Comments »
IFR FaD 4 – a lifetime of energy in the palm of your handBelow 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 […]
It seems like something that only a crazed conspiracy theorist would come up with. A source of carbon-free energy that holds the potential to provide base load power for the planet for thousands of years hence, and which could be built along the existing transmission grid and even be housed within retrofitted coal-fired power stations. […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | Tagged: | 117 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… |
