Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Energy Forum  »  TIME Magazine & CNN News story - "The Clean Energy Scam"
Page 1 of 1    
Author Message
calderhome@yahoo.com
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:47 am
Guest
The media is turning against biofuels in a big way. There have been
food riots in so many countries now that it is hard to keep track.
Oil price hikes (really US dollar declining) has raised the price of
food, but only biofuels have shrunk the human food supply. With
biofuels out of the equation, there would be no food crisis, just half
the food price inflation we are seeing today. We could survive that,
but we won't survive biofuels, and that is why at some point there
will be an anti-biofuel revolution in Congress and in the EU.
'Biofuels' will be a dirty word, and a political death sentence for
all those who still promote them.

SEE

"The Clean Energy Scam" (TIME MAGAZINE - CNN NEWS) - "It's (biofuels)
dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the
name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect,
turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol
made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and
eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future,
looks less green than oil-derived gasoline."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
- - - - -
SEE

"Chemist warns of biofuel 'dead end'" - "Future historians may
ultimately see the biofuels of the early 21st century as a
technological dead end."

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwwiUVDzBZM0GHevZ13mLxx_VyYQ
- - - - -
SEE

Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

British scientist James Lovelock, the father of the living earth
Gaia theory, has stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a
large human population on planet earth without causing global warming
and destroying the environment. Nuclear power is the only technology
that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny
amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting any
significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Energy conservation, solar,
wind, tidal, geothermal, and other energy schemes can help the cause,
but nuclear power is the only major, core solution to global warming
available to human beings.

Using nuclear power we can make synthetic gasoline and jet fuel
directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide. This new energy scheme may
be cheaper and more practical than using hydrogen as fuel, because it
would require no changes to our existing energy distribution
infrastructure. Intense heat from nuclear reactors is used to break
down carbon dioxide into its component parts, carbon monoxide and
oxygen. The carbon monoxide can then be combined with water in a
catalytic process to make either pure hydrogen gas or more easily
transportable liquid synthetic fuels that can be used in ordinary
automobiles.

One of the benefits of nuclear power is that the United States
already owns huge stockpiles of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear
weapons materials, which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian
power production. If you consider the amount of uranium easily
available in the earth's crust for mining, plus the use of much more
plentiful thorium as fuel in breeder reactors, then the world has
enough nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years; an essentially
endless supply. Nuclear power plants efficiently output at least 93
times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the
energy used in their construction and decommissioning.

Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because
only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored at the Yucca Mountain
Repository. The nuclear "waste" is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and
that is part of the reason why France's nuclear power program has been
so successful. France relies heavily on nuclear power plants and
nuclear fuel reprocessing, and France has the cleanest air and lowest
electricity rates in Europe.

The fears Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants are
largely unfounded. One lone disaster that occurred at an obsolete
Ukrainian reactor is insufficient reason to be eternally afraid of all
nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used
a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did
not even have a containment vessel. The 1986 Chernobyl accident was
caused by Soviet engineers conducting irresponsible experiments that
were unrelated to normal civilian power production, and which would
not be allowed in the USA. The Chernobyl accident killed a total of
56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.

Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and pollution free operation. By contrast, the over 600 coal
burning power plants which produce 49% of our nation's electricity
unleash tremendous pollution. They emit sulfur dioxide and oxides of
nitrogen which cause acid rain, tons of toxic mercury, and an enormous
skyward bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents 10% of all
CO2 emissions worldwide. Coal power plants also spew out thorium and
uranium, both radioactive metals which naturally accumulate in coal.
The potential nuclear energy value of these metals far exceeds the
energy value of the combustible carbon content of the coal itself.
Coal power plants also release microscopic particulate matter, which
clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000
premature deaths in the United States every year; 428 times the
Chernobyl death toll.

Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so
much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The
answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a
Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck, and by
scientifically undereducated politicians and environmental activists.
There has never been a single death attributed to American civilian
nuclear power plants, which produce electricity at an average cost of
about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate comparable to hydroelectric
power and less than natural gas or coal.

Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant
designs using mass production techniques for major structural and
control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like
manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same
design the cheaper they become. For the total long term cost of the
Iraq War, estimated to be about 2 trillion dollars, we could build 670
1,500 megawatt nuclear power plants outputting a total of 1,005,000
megawatts. Gas cooled pebble bed reactors with containment structures
can be used in areas without sufficient water for conventional water
cooled designs. Pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown proof due
to the basic laws of physics. If the reactor's cooling system should
fail, the core temperature automatically lowers itself to safe levels
without mechanical intervention.

This plan would give the United States virtual energy
independence, more than doubling our current national electric
generating capacity of 906,155 megawatts. Nuclear power has the
potential to save us from desertification of our heartland, increased
storm damage and coastal flooding. Unlike producing biofuels, use of
nuclear power will never cause food shortages, erode topsoil, or be
exquisitely dependent on climatic conditions for reliable energy
production.

For full biofuel facts, see- http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder
zzbunker@netscape.net
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:54 am
Guest
On Mar 28, 12:47 pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Quote:
The media is turning against biofuels in a big way.  There have been
food riots in so many countries now that it is hard to keep track.
Oil price hikes (really US dollar declining) has raised the price of
food, but only biofuels have shrunk the human food supply.  With
biofuels out of the equation, there would be no food crisis, just half
the food price inflation we are seeing today.  We could survive that,
but we won't survive biofuels, and that is why at some point there
will be an anti-biofuel revolution in Congress and in the EU.
'Biofuels' will be a dirty word, and a political death sentence for
all those who still promote them.

Well, the idiots in the media still can't a grip on the reality
of the matter. In that the problem has just about nothing to
do with fuel. It's largely their idiot GUBment's obressive
road taxes that cause most of both the transportation
and food cost increases. And that's simply to
keep fueling their idiotic revolving budget to pay off the interest
on their
outrageous Federal Debt to already idiotically rich foreigan banks
and insurance companies. Which is where the Satellites, Drones,
laser-guided weapons, the robots, computers, Artificial
Intelligence,
the Internet, the laser disks, DNA. Holograms, and biogradable
come into their moron energy scheming with Mexico.



Quote:

SEE

"The Clean Energy Scam" (TIME MAGAZINE - CNN NEWS) - "It's (biofuels)
dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the
name of saving it.  Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect,
turns out to be environmentally disastrous.  Even cellulosic ethanol
made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and
eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future,
looks less green than oil-derived gasoline."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
- - - - -
SEE

"Chemist warns of biofuel 'dead end'" - "Future historians may
ultimately see the biofuels of the early 21st century as a
technological dead end."

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwwiUVDzBZM0GHevZ13mLxx_VyYQ
- - - - -
SEE

Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

     British scientist James Lovelock, the father of the living earth
Gaia theory, has stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a
large human population on planet earth without causing global warming
and destroying the environment.  Nuclear power is the only technology
that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny
amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting any
significant amounts of greenhouse gases.  Energy conservation, solar,
wind, tidal, geothermal, and other energy schemes can help the cause,
but nuclear power is the only major, core solution to global warming
available to human beings.

     Using nuclear power we can make synthetic gasoline and jet fuel
directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide.  This new energy scheme may
be cheaper and more practical than using hydrogen as fuel, because it
would require no changes to our existing energy distribution
infrastructure.  Intense heat from nuclear reactors is used to break
down carbon dioxide into its component parts, carbon monoxide and
oxygen.  The carbon monoxide can then be combined with water in a
catalytic process to make either pure hydrogen gas or more easily
transportable liquid synthetic fuels that can be used in ordinary
automobiles.

     One of the benefits of nuclear power is that the United States
already owns huge stockpiles of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear
weapons materials, which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian
power production.  If you consider the amount of uranium easily
available in the earth's crust for mining, plus the use of much more
plentiful thorium as fuel in breeder reactors, then the world has
enough nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years; an essentially
endless supply.  Nuclear power plants efficiently output at least 93
times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the
energy used in their construction and decommissioning.

     Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because
only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle.  When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored at the Yucca Mountain
Repository.  The nuclear "waste" is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and
that is part of the reason why France's nuclear power program has been
so successful.  France relies heavily on nuclear power plants and
nuclear fuel reprocessing, and France has the cleanest air and lowest
electricity rates in Europe.

     The fears Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants are
largely unfounded.  One lone disaster that occurred at an obsolete
Ukrainian reactor is insufficient reason to be eternally afraid of all
nuclear power plants across the board.  The old Chernobyl reactor used
a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did
not even have a containment vessel.  The 1986 Chernobyl accident was
caused by Soviet engineers conducting irresponsible experiments that
were unrelated to normal civilian power production, and which would
not be allowed in the USA.  The Chernobyl accident killed a total of
56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.

     Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and pollution free operation.  By contrast, the over 600 coal
burning power plants which produce 49% of our nation's electricity
unleash tremendous pollution.  They emit sulfur dioxide and oxides of
nitrogen which cause acid rain, tons of toxic mercury, and an enormous
skyward bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents 10% of all
CO2 emissions worldwide.  Coal power plants also spew out thorium and
uranium, both radioactive metals which naturally accumulate in coal.
The potential nuclear energy value of these metals far exceeds the
energy value of the combustible carbon content of the coal itself.
Coal power plants also release microscopic particulate matter, which
clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000
premature deaths in the United States every year; 428 times the
Chernobyl death toll.

     Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so
much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power?  The
answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a
Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck, and by
scientifically undereducated politicians and environmental activists.
There has never been a single death attributed to American civilian
nuclear power plants, which produce electricity at an average cost of
about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate comparable to hydroelectric
power and less than natural gas or coal.

     Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant
designs using mass production techniques for major structural and
control components can make nuclear power a bargain.  Just like
manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same
design the cheaper they become.  For the total long term cost of the
Iraq War, estimated to be about 2 trillion dollars, we could build 670
1,500 megawatt nuclear power plants outputting a total of 1,005,000
megawatts.  Gas cooled pebble bed reactors with containment structures
can be used in areas without sufficient water for conventional water
cooled designs.  Pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown proof due
to the basic laws of physics.  If the reactor's cooling system should
fail, the core temperature automatically lowers itself to safe levels
without mechanical intervention.

     This plan would give the United States virtual energy
independence, more than doubling our current national electric
generating capacity of 906,155 megawatts.  Nuclear power has the
potential to save us from desertification of our heartland, increased
storm damage and coastal flooding.  Unlike producing biofuels, use of
nuclear power will never cause food shortages, erode topsoil, or be
exquisitely dependent on climatic conditions for reliable energy
production.

For full biofuel facts, see-http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder
T. Keating
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:14 pm
Guest
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT), "calderhome@yahoo.com"
<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote:


The Calderhome content I'm responding to below was not part of quoted
article.. Chemist article advocates..


"The way ahead has to include research into increasing biofuel yields
dramatically and investigating artificial photosynthesis for alcohol
production, but also placing higher priority on other, much more
efficient land-based technologies."

Photo-voltaic cells could potentially convert 20% of the sun's energy,
and concentrated solar power devices still more, he said.

Other useful technologies included new generation high-capacity
electric batteries and devices for storing hydrogen produced from
water.

These innovations could provide a long-term solution for vehicles at a
fraction of the cost of the biofuel use of land, said Dr Pike. "


The quoted text below was not written by the Chemist..

Quote:
Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming


Bzzzzt...not..

snipp... promises of nuclear power to make everything..
U235 will run out long before that time.. less then a centuries
worth of recoverable U235 remains.

Th232 is a not starter without large amounts of weapons grade
Pu239. It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core) to make
enough U233 (does not exist in nature) to fuel just one(1) GWe
reactor.

Breeders to extend the fuel supply are still in the experimental stage
and lack many significant safety features (required to increase
breeding ratio).

Japan's prototype breeder (MonJu ~100MW) was shutdown after a
liquid metal coolant leak after just 5 months of operation..

The US's Fermi-1 breeder reactor suffered a partial core meltdown
after just three years of operation. Basis for the Book titled
"We Almost Lost Detroit"


Quote:
Chernobyl death toll.

At least half a million deaths and still climbing..
155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which
received 70% of the fallout.


At least 2.8 million people where directly exposed..
Another ~100 million people indirectly exposed via contaminated
food stuffs..
Still born, birth defects, and other genetic ailments abound in
Ukraine, and Belarus. Health systems overwhelmed..

(2006) US National Academy of Science reviewed all the scientific
studies to date on the subject and has concluded that their is no safe
dose of ionizing radiation. Each dose increases the chances of
radiation related aliments. Exposure at younger ages increases the
risk to even higher probabilities.. They have also determined that
exposure takes on many forms of life shortening diseases.. (besides
cancer.)

A World Health Organization scientist( IAEA) admitted to lying
about the death tool after being confronted by fellow scientists at a
conference.

Advocates for nuclear power all based there death toll findings on
a few very specific types of cancer, a disproved obsolete assumption!!

Quote:

Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so
much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The
answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a
Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck, and by
scientifically undereducated politicians and environmental activists.
There has never been a single death attributed to American civilian
nuclear power plants, which produce electricity at an average cost of
about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate comparable to hydroelectric
power and less than natural gas or coal.

Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant
designs using mass production techniques for major structural and
control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like
manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same
design the cheaper they become. For the total long term cost of the
Iraq War, estimated to be about 2 trillion dollars, we could build 670
1,500 megawatt nuclear power plants outputting a total of 1,005,000
megawatts.

Bzzzt... Current price of a big nuke 6 to 9 billion dollars per
reactor.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-0318fpl,0,1666939.story
"FP&L clears one hurdle en route to building two nuclear generators
near Turkey Point"
"March 18, 2008"

"The new generators would produce 2,200 to 3,040 megawatts of power
and power an estimated one million homes. Pending the approvals, FPL
hopes to have the new generators operating in 2018 and 2020."

"Commissioners acknowledged that the projected costs - which have been
estimated at about $12 billion to $18 billion - may change but that
they would review information annually to review whether the project
makes sense."

Note: The large variance in output and costs.. ( 6 to 9$ per watt..)
Which still doesn't include Operational, Fuel, and Decomissiing
costs..

====

As for gas cooled.. pebble bed..
they're much smaller plants(100 to 300 MW range) , still in
prototype research stage after several accidents, and a containment
failure.

http://www.greenparty.org.za/capetowngreens/nuclear/PBMRFactSheet.pdf
"Fission chips: What they don’t tell you
about the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)"
Eric Gisin
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:27 pm
Guest
"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:ap9qu35dob3glf0m0b9l9clmdn9sfmt9ub@4ax.com...

TROLL ALERT. Timmy is a Tool of the anti-nuke enviro-cult.

Quote:
The quoted text below was not written by the Chemist..

Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

Bzzzzt...not..

snipp... promises of nuclear power to make everything..
U235 will run out long before that time.. less then a centuries
worth of recoverable U235 remains.

The "everything will peak this century" conspiracy theory.


Quote:
Th232 is a not starter without large amounts of weapons grade
Pu239. It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core) to make
enough U233 (does not exist in nature) to fuel just one(1) GWe
reactor.

Bullshit.
Breeders to extend the fuel supply are still in the experimental stage
and lack many significant safety features (required to increase
breeding ratio).

More bullshit.


Quote:
Japan's prototype breeder (MonJu ~100MW) was shutdown after a
liquid metal coolant leak after just 5 months of operation..

The US's Fermi-1 breeder reactor suffered a partial core meltdown
after just three years of operation. Basis for the Book titled
"We Almost Lost Detroit"


Chernobyl death toll.

At least half a million deaths and still climbing..
155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which
received 70% of the fallout.

Raving loony Greenpeace delusions. A few thousand.

At least 2.8 million people where directly exposed..
Another ~100 million people indirectly exposed via contaminated
food stuffs..
Still born, birth defects, and other genetic ailments abound in
Ukraine, and Belarus. Health systems overwhelmed..

(2006) US National Academy of Science reviewed all the scientific
studies to date on the subject and has concluded that their is no safe
dose of ionizing radiation. Each dose increases the chances of
radiation related aliments. Exposure at younger ages increases the
risk to even higher probabilities.. They have also determined that
exposure takes on many forms of life shortening diseases.. (besides
cancer.)

Wrong and irrelevent.

All man-made radiation is orders of magnitude less than natural levels.
Are you saying everyone is going to die?

Quote:
A World Health Organization scientist( IAEA) admitted to lying

[more drivel snipped]
calderhome@yahoo.com
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:55 pm
Guest
My experience has been that the "environmentalists" lie the most and
get the most facts wrong, and lack basic reasoning skills. I am an
"environmentalists" also, but not the loony type and don't think we
are going to run the world on hemp and olive trees. The anti-nuke
post was so absurd and inaccurate it is not worth responding to.

Biofuels are a dead end unless we want to kill off most of the
population and go back to a horse and buggy lifestyles, which is
actually what some environmentalists want.

To quote my page on biofuels-

"Even if the USA dedicated 100% of our corn and soybean production to
biofuels, we would only satisfy 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of
diesel demand. To quote Stuart Staniford, "The biofuel potential of
the entire human food supply is quite a small amount of energy
compared to the global oil supply - somewhere between 15 to 20% on a
volumetric basis, so 10 to 15% on an energy basis." Every year the
human race burns up the equivalent of 400 years worth of planetary
vegetation in the condensed form of fossil fuels. How are we going to
replace all that concentrated energy by growing biofuel crops on our
desperately overpopulated, pure water starved little planet?"

With all the plutonium, uranium, and thorium in the world, we have at
least 5,000 years worth of fuel available and probably much more. We
will have to go nuclear or let global warming do its thing. We really
do not know what will happen to the world if CO2 levels are left to
rise endlessly, but we will find out to hard way.

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html - biofuel facts

Christopher Calder
Bob F
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:44 pm
Guest
"Eric Gisin" <gisin@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:13uqtkvbg4t2t25@corp.supernews.com...
Quote:
"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:ap9qu35dob3glf0m0b9l9clmdn9sfmt9ub@4ax.com...

TROLL ALERT. Timmy is a Tool of the anti-nuke enviro-cult.

The quoted text below was not written by the Chemist..

Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

Bzzzzt...not..

snipp... promises of nuclear power to make everything..
U235 will run out long before that time.. less then a centuries
worth of recoverable U235 remains.

The "everything will peak this century" conspiracy theory.

Th232 is a not starter without large amounts of weapons grade
Pu239. It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core) to make
enough U233 (does not exist in nature) to fuel just one(1) GWe
reactor.

Bullshit.
Breeders to extend the fuel supply are still in the experimental stage
and lack many significant safety features (required to increase
breeding ratio).

More bullshit.

Japan's prototype breeder (MonJu ~100MW) was shutdown after a
liquid metal coolant leak after just 5 months of operation..

The US's Fermi-1 breeder reactor suffered a partial core meltdown
after just three years of operation. Basis for the Book titled
"We Almost Lost Detroit"


Chernobyl death toll.

At least half a million deaths and still climbing..
155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which
received 70% of the fallout.

Raving loony Greenpeace delusions. A few thousand.

At least 2.8 million people where directly exposed..
Another ~100 million people indirectly exposed via contaminated
food stuffs..
Still born, birth defects, and other genetic ailments abound in
Ukraine, and Belarus. Health systems overwhelmed..

(2006) US National Academy of Science reviewed all the scientific
studies to date on the subject and has concluded that their is no safe
dose of ionizing radiation. Each dose increases the chances of
radiation related aliments. Exposure at younger ages increases the
risk to even higher probabilities.. They have also determined that
exposure takes on many forms of life shortening diseases.. (besides
cancer.)

Wrong and irrelevent.
All man-made radiation is orders of magnitude less than natural levels.
Are you saying everyone is going to die?

A World Health Organization scientist( IAEA) admitted to lying

[more drivel snipped]


Thank you for the enlightening discussion. Now everyone in the world understands
that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. NOT!
David Morgan (MAMS)
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:24 am
Guest
"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> barked nonsense propaganda in message ....

<snipped>


Has anyone bothered to tell you today that you're a completely brainwashed moron?


Good... then I don't have to.
zzbunker@netscape.net
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:09 am
Guest
On Mar 29, 1:55 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Quote:
My experience has been that the "environmentalists" lie the most and
get the most facts wrong, and lack basic reasoning skills.  I am an
"environmentalists" also, but not the loony type and don't think we
are going to run the world on hemp and olive trees.  The anti-nuke
post was so absurd and inaccurate it is not worth responding to.

Biofuels are a dead end unless we want to kill off most of the
population and go back to a horse and buggy lifestyles, which is
actually what some environmentalists want.

To quote my page on biofuels-

"Even if the USA dedicated 100% of our corn and soybean production to
biofuels, we would only satisfy 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of
diesel demand.  To quote Stuart Staniford, "The biofuel potential of
the entire human food supply is quite a small amount of energy
compared to the global oil supply - somewhere between 15 to 20% on a
volumetric basis, so 10 to 15% on an energy basis."  Every year the
human race burns up the equivalent of 400 years worth of planetary
vegetation in the condensed form of fossil fuels.  How are we going to
replace all that concentrated energy by growing biofuel crops on our
desperately overpopulated, pure water starved little planet?"

With all the plutonium, uranium, and thorium in the world, we have at
least 5,000 years worth of fuel available and probably much more.  We
will have to go nuclear or let global warming do its thing.  We really
do not know what will happen to the world if CO2 levels are left to
rise endlessly, but we will find out to hard way.

We already know what will happen. The New Orleans, Manhattan,
and Florida idiots will flood AGAIN. Why? It's has nothing to
with Noah, it has to do with MORONS.
Which is why we keep building more robots, cruise missiles,
satellites, drones, laser-guided bombs, water-proof computers, mega-
watt lasers,
and Space Shuttles for the GE/GM/AT&T imbeciles no matter what the
CO2 level is.




Quote:

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html- biofuel facts

Christopher Calder
daestrom
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:47 pm
Guest
"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:ap9qu35dob3glf0m0b9l9clmdn9sfmt9ub@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:47:28 -0700 (PDT), "calderhome@yahoo.com"
calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote:



http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwwiUVDzBZM0GHevZ13mLxx_VyYQ
- - - - -
SEE


snip

Breeders to extend the fuel supply are still in the experimental stage
and lack many significant safety features (required to increase
breeding ratio).

Bah!! What safety system, when eliminated, increases breeding ratio? True,
some breeders are more difficult to control due to a different
delayed-neutron coefficient, but that's not a 'safety system'. There is no
inherenent reason to eliminate *any* safety system to "increase breeding
ratio", you're just making sh__ up to scare people.

Quote:

Japan's prototype breeder (MonJu ~100MW) was shutdown after a
liquid metal coolant leak after just 5 months of operation..

The US's Fermi-1 breeder reactor suffered a partial core meltdown
after just three years of operation. Basis for the Book titled
"We Almost Lost Detroit"


The partial core meltdown at Fermi-1 had *nothing* to do with it being a
breeder and you probably know that. If you actually read the book, you'd
know it was a blockage in a few (or was it only one??) coolant channel
caused by a device breaking free from the bottom of the reactor vessel.
This device breaking off was not inherent to it being a breeder, it was
designed to separate some of the 'corium' should there be a complete
meltdown. It is ironic that a safety device *added to the reactor vessel*
to mitigate the effects of a core meltdown actually *caused* a partial
meltdown.

<snip
Quote:
====

As for gas cooled.. pebble bed..
they're much smaller plants(100 to 300 MW range) , still in
prototype research stage after several accidents, and a containment
failure.

http://www.greenparty.org.za/capetowngreens/nuclear/PBMRFactSheet.pdf
"Fission chips: What they don't tell you
about the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)"


Another mis-direction. Did you read the article? It is obviously biased.
There has been *one* minor release of radioactivity from a PBMR (the one in
Germany). It was very unfortunate that the operators did not go public with
the information sooner and was thus white-washed as a cover-up. But the
truth is the amount of radioactivity released was quite low and did not
present a danger to the public.

Got a cite for your 'several accidents'?

The PBMR has some very good intrinsic safety features that you obviously
don't want to talk about. Like have it operate at full power and shut off
all the coolant flow and there is no fuel overheating or fuel failure, even
after a couple of days of no active cooling. Or the fact that there is very
little excess reactivity in a PBR because it is being constantly refueled
and needs no excess reactivity to operate. Or the fact that it operates
under lower pressures than LWRs and is thus less likely to develop a leak.
Or that the amount of energy stored in the coolant is much lower, making a
leak much easier to contain.

But I know you and your typical response. So I'm only posting this so
others can read something about PBMR's that isn't so obviously biased.

daestrom
Karl Johanson
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:56 pm
Guest
"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote

Quote:
Chernobyl death toll.

At least half a million deaths and still climbing..

At one point a Ukrainian official tried to claim 125,000 deaths from
Chernobyl. It turned out that was deaths from all causes in the area at
the time. Sternglass claimed tens of thousands of deaths in the US from
Chernobyl, but he had to add deaths from before the accident.

Quote:
155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which
received 70% of the fallout.

Uninhabitable? People went back to work *at the site* weeks after the
accident. Much of the exclusion zone is less radioactive than much of
the world is naturally.

Karl Johanson
Guest
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:08 am
On Mar 28, 11:14 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:

Quote:
Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

Yes, that is correct. NO "renewable" solution can shut down fossil
plants.
Quote:

snipp...  promises of nuclear power to make everything..
   U235 will run out long before that time..  less then a centuries
worth of recoverable U235 remains.

"Centuries" is about right. What is the problem?

Quote:
   Th232  is a not starter without large amounts of weapons grade
Pu239.   It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core)  to make
enough U233  (does not exist in nature)  to fuel just one(1) GWe
reactor.

Keating, you know what they say about half truths. The point of a
thorium reactor is NOT to breed MORE fuel than it uses, it is to breed
ENOUGH fuel so no more fuel has to be added.

pure U-233
pure U-235
HEU
weapons-grade Pu
reactor-grade Pu

ALL of the above are good "starter charges". One charge and the
reactor can breed enough fuel to run *indefinetly*. Since U-235 is
good, the SAME enrichment facilities can be used for initial starter
charges. A new starter charge for every 10 MSRs built...forever. The
amount of thorium need is 1 ton of natural thorium per GW Year. That
can be "mined" with four guys with shovels in half a day. The reactors
only run at 1 astmosphere so can be built for less than a half of
current LWRs.

Quote:
Chernobyl death toll.

At least half a million deaths and still climbing..
155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which
received 70% of the fallout.

Not true. At best 4,000. NO area is uninhabitable, period.

Quote:
   At least 2.8 million people where directly exposed..

No, they were not.

Quote:
   Another ~100 million people indirectly exposed via contaminated
food stuffs..

No evidence of this as any worse than the natural radiation exposed to
on a daily basis.

Quote:
   Still born, birth defects, and other genetic ailments abound in
Ukraine, and Belarus.   Health systems overwhelmed..

Wishful thinking on your part. In 1990 EVERY cancer in Ukraine was
ascribed to Chernobyl for financial reasons.

Quote:
   (2006) US National Academy of Science reviewed all the scientific
studies to date on the subject and has concluded that their is no safe
dose of ionizing radiation.  Each dose increases the chances of
radiation related aliments.   Exposure at younger ages increases the
risk to even higher probabilities.. They have also determined that
exposure takes on many forms of life shortening diseases.. (besides
cancer.)

This is NOT agreed upon by actual DOCTORS who are involved in
radiation or cancer. It does not explain WHY if we are exposed world-
wide to 350 mrem every year that people who live in places where the
exposure is 200% or more of that have no more cancers than those who
exposed to the lower amount. People in Finnland are exposed to 1700
mrem and they actually have LESS cancer than the world wide average.
So...small amounts of radiation itself does NOT cause an increase in
cancer.

Quote:
    A World Health Organization scientist( IAEA) admitted to lying
about the death tool after being confronted by fellow scientists at a
conference.  

Really? Where and when was this?
Quote:

   Advocates for nuclear power all based there death toll findings on
a few very specific types of cancer, a disproved obsolete assumption!!

No...it's all forms of cancer that actual doctors agree causes cancer.
At any rate, it's pretty irrelevant all NPPs have on average less
raditation than areas without NPPs. In fact, world wide, there are
FEWER cancer cases near NPPs than away from them. Unlike you I do not
use this as a method to argue that NPP can prevent cancer, which would
be your method.

David
energyfromthorium.com
left-atomics.blogspot.com
T. Keating
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:55 pm
Guest
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:08:55 -0700 (PDT), dave.walters@comcast.net
wrote:

Quote:
On Mar 28, 11:14 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:

Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

Yes, that is correct. NO "renewable" solution can shut down fossil
plants.

snipp...  promises of nuclear power to make everything..
   U235 will run out long before that time..  less then a centuries
worth of recoverable U235 remains.

"Centuries" is about right. What is the problem?

   Th232  is a not starter without large amounts of weapons grade
Pu239.   It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core)  to make
enough U233  (does not exist in nature)  to fuel just one(1) GWe
reactor.

Keating, you know what they say about half truths. The point of a
thorium reactor is NOT to breed MORE fuel than it uses, it is to breed
ENOUGH fuel so no more fuel has to be added.

pure U-233

Doesn't occur in nature, decayed into other lighter elements long ago.
Their are no viable breeders operating on thorium..
(India abandoned their breeder project for lack of needed Pu
material.)

Quote:
pure U-235
HEU
weapons-grade Pu
reactor-grade Pu

First you need to build a large scale viable breeder reactor with a
breeding ratio of 1.2 or so. (With on site fuel speration/refinement
to remove neutron poisons, otherwise the breeding ratio/energy output
drops as time progresses.)

That will entail using some form of high risk metallic fuel, and
either liquid sodium or some other risky highly reactive coolant.
(Anything else absorbs too many neutrons.).

Verify the design, by building and operating it at full power for 20
years without incident..

These events has not happened in the history of mankind.
Nor is it going to happen anytime soon..

Until mankind crosses those specific thresholds.
Your just another pro nuke person polluting these newsgroups with
useless words..
zzbunker@netscape.net
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Guest
On Mar 29, 1:55 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Quote:
My experience has been that the "environmentalists" lie the most and
get the most facts wrong, and lack basic reasoning skills.  I am an
"environmentalists" also, but not the loony type and don't think we
are going to run the world on hemp and olive trees.  The anti-nuke
post was so absurd and inaccurate it is not worth responding to.

Biofuels are a dead end unless we want to kill off most of the
population and go back to a horse and buggy lifestyles, which is
actually what some environmentalists want.

To quote my page on biofuels-

"Even if the USA dedicated 100% of our corn and soybean production to
biofuels, we would only satisfy 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of
diesel demand.

Well, pro-biofuel people, since find almost of that irrelevent.
Since the only thing the Time and CNN asswipes are
interested in is keeping the bulk-mailers, Warner Brothers,
and Boeing happy. Since they are stooges for the neo-con.
And are not interested in anything to do with energy, advanced
media, advanced
technology, advanced computers, advanced robots, or advanced
science.




 To quote Stuart Staniford, "The biofuel potential of
Quote:
the entire human food supply is quite a small amount of energy
compared to the global oil supply - somewhere between 15 to 20% on a
volumetric basis, so 10 to 15% on an energy basis."  Every year the
human race burns up the equivalent of 400 years worth of planetary
vegetation in the condensed form of fossil fuels.  How are we going to
replace all that concentrated energy by growing biofuel crops on our
desperately overpopulated, pure water starved little planet?"

With all the plutonium, uranium, and thorium in the world, we have at
least 5,000 years worth of fuel available and probably much more.  We
will have to go nuclear or let global warming do its thing.  We really
do not know what will happen to the world if CO2 levels are left to
rise endlessly, but we will find out to hard way.

http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html- biofuel facts

Christopher Calder
 
Page 1 of 1       All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:03 am