[eclipse]

Hi all,
I noticed some circular arguments in Alice Friedman's post on coal power plants dependency on rail.
http://energyskeptic.com/2017/interdepe ... p-running/

I typed it up, and hit submit. It's still awaiting moderation, since ...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')clipse says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm

[yellowcanoe]

There's nothing new about breeder reactors but the US and other Western countries have essentially given up on advancing nuclear power. Western countries are investing very little in developing alternatives to conventional pressurized light water reactors. China is taking the lead in nuclear power development in pursuing several different reactor technologies including an advanced heavy water reactor that can make use of expended fuel from light water reactors. I am very frustrated by this situation -- I live in Ontario, Canada where 60% of our electricity is generated by CANDU heavy water reactors. We've lost the ability to build new reactors though we still have the technology to refurbish our existing reactors.

[eclipse]

I hear you on the West! The irony is China will be selling them back to us one day. That doesn't mean we should wait: the west could build a bunch of AP1000's or whatever the new standard becomes until China are ready to fully commercialise their new breeders. Rumours are China will mass produce breeder nukes cheaper than coal in just 6 years!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/china- ... ng-at.html

My favourite Chinese nuclear program is, of course, the Molten Salt Reactor problem. I mean, come on: a reactor that requires power to GO, not to COOL? A fuel that cannot melt down because it is already a liquid? A fuel that, in a power failure, drains away and hardens up? A fuel that would not go very far even if the reactor were hit by a missile because it is chemically bonded to the liquid salts that crystalise at 450degrees C? That's my kind of reactor.

But let's not forget Russia.

Russia had the old BN-350, and then built the Bn-600. Note: the Japanese paid Russia a billion for the technical specs on their old BN-600, and “The operation of the reactor is an international study in progress; Russia, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom currently participate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

They just opened the BN-800 (and sold the plans to China).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

They are building 11 new normal reactors over the next few years, including 2 whopping great BN-1200's!
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Ru ... 81602.html

So I guess, to get back on topic, when there's all this potential for amazing technologies that can generate abundant RELIABLE clean energy, why do doomers censor?

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '-')snip-

So I guess, to get back on topic, when there's all this potential for amazing technologies that can generate abundant RELIABLE clean energy, why do doomers censor?

[eclipse]

Except today's nukes can be mass produced, and then tomorrow's breeders will eat all the waste.
Nukes have a high enough EROEI to recharge EV's, with electric vehicles replacing all lighter trucks and cars. Diesel dependent heavy vehicles and long-haul freight can run on rechargable boron or even synthetic diesel from seawater. At scale and volume and pretty much at price. So I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

[KaiserJeep]

When EVs can replace ICE vehicles, they will. Today they are for enthusiasts only.

As for nuclear power, I am a fan. However, most people are not, and the hysteria has just about killed nuclear power.

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '-')snip-

So I guess, to get back on topic, when there's all this potential for amazing technologies that can generate abundant RELIABLE clean energy, why do doomers censor?

[eclipse]

I've not seen evidence, just assertions.

[Cog]

Doomers tend to seek out others of like mind to reinforce whatever end state that they believe in. Data which does not support their vision of doom is angrily received. On many sites on the internet this generally results in censorship or a ban. When you get in between a man and his doom, he won't thank you for it.

Most people would be pleasantly relieved if a doctor told them a tumor was benign and not cancerous as they feared. The doomer takes no relief when facts contrary to his doom vision are presented. It only makes him angry.

I find doomers, and their companions the conspiracy theorists, a fascinating study in human psychology.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'I')'ve not seen evidence, just assertions.

[ralfy]

It has to do with the realities of limits to growth:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

That is, biocapacity (which includes availability of oil and various minerals) is limited, but the world population continues to grow. That means ecological footprint per person has to remain small in order to ensure optimal health.

Unfortunately, population continues to rise, which means footprint per capita has to decrease. It has to decrease further given long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming.

Meanwhile, the global economy on which that population depends is capitalist, which means footprint per capita has to keep growing in order to ensure that much of the wealth (which consists primarily of numbers in hard drives) of the rich (which controls most of that economy) continues to grow. The same goes for both the middle class and those who want to be part of the middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

[Cog]

Can always count on ralfy to give us the socialist/Marxist talking points. Straight from the BBC.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')With all the amazing new technologies like breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste and the other stuff my blog covers (see my sig), why are doomers so keen to ban this stuff?

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')With all the amazing new technologies like breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste and the other stuff my blog covers (see my sig), why are doomers so keen to ban this stuff?

[evilgenius]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'I')'ve not seen evidence, just assertions.

[KaiserJeep]

Careful, what you are saying about doom is bordering on sacrilegious for PO.com, where so many members are invested in the end of all things.

The problem with the Internet (which I played a small part in creating) is that there simply is very little of true philosophical, religious, educational, and political content there. Don't get me wrong, everything is linked, but most of the good stuff is behind paywalls. It has to be, because maintaining standards when reporting on these topics requires money, and relatively few are willing to pay for content. The signal-to-noise ratio on the free stuff is very low - even at PO.com.

A former member of my daughter's girl scout troop has just gotten her PhD in Psychology. Her thesis was on the internet and it's users. I am one of her non-technical reviewers, she does the same for my historical papers. She has proved with original research that the online world is more real than the actual world for the vast majority of users. When online repositories of history and current events diverge from the actual memories of the reader, most folks unquestioningly edit their own memories to comply with the online version. I find this astonishing and unsettling. She did her research by deliberately introducing inaccurate content to online web pages, and observing the results.

I have an extensive library of history texts, including the publications of the Nantucket Historical Association (where I am published multiple times), where I have been a member for 40+ years. Some of the tour guides on that tourist trap of an island (I love the place, yet can't stand to be there for long) are dishing out modified History, and the NHA has been fighting against it. There are multiple web pages where highly questionable "historical facts" are found, and the NHA is struggling with the question of whether to put our archives, or portions of them online. It is almost certain that when the actual history diverges from the popular version, the real story loses out.

I have decided to stay out of the fray, as (because of my 36+ year background in digital design) my own opinion would be accorded more weight than it actually merits.

[eclipse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I')t has to do with the realities of limits to growth:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

That is, biocapacity (which includes availability of oil and various minerals) is limited, but the world population continues to grow. That means ecological footprint per person has to remain small in order to ensure optimal health.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '.')..farming 9% of the world's oceans for kelp....

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')
But IPAT shows us the way? T - including all our energy resources - can either be a multiplier of environmental impact or divider. If we use the right T, like farming 9% of the world's oceans for kelp, we could have:-

[eclipse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '.')..farming 9% of the world's oceans for kelp....