Nuclear start up company - don't laugh face-book was a start-up once.

I think most of this has been said already but if you have 5 minutes it is an interesting article.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/a-new-way-to-do-nuclear.html
A quote from it.
One recent paper estimated that nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million air-pollution-related deaths globally.
and from one of the responses
More people have died in America installing rooftop solar, than have ever died from commercial nuclear power. (although there is no reference quoted for this)
--
Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/06/2013 16:27, news wrote:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/a-new-way-to-do-nuclear.html

As the article says, there were (small) working molten salt reactors back in the '60s. The fact that no-one building large commercial plant ever went down that route should tell you something.
It's not trivial to work out total deaths associated with nuclear power. You need to include lung cancer in uranium miners, and these are not sudden deaths like falling off a roof, it's about reduced life expectancy.
I'm confident that nuclear has provided big benefits in air pollution, but splitting air pollution "deaths" (or more exactly reduced life expectancy) between transport, the chemical industry, and electricity generation is complex.
Your analogy with facebook is flawed; facebook was a startup at a time when there was nothing else quite like it, whereas there is a large and relatively mature nuclear industry now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/06/2013 17:15, newshound wrote:

See the link below

Generation IV designs include molten salt reactors. They are also proposed as the basis for thorium reactors.

This site has done the work:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/06/13 17:15, newshound wrote:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/a-new-way-to-do-nuclear.html

Mostly that in the 60s a reactor that *didn't* produce weapons grade plutonium was something the DOD were not going to fund :-)

no more radiaoctive than any other mine really. yellowcake - which is already processed - is not particularly hazardous.

And these guys are not promising anything new. Just looking to do with better tools what was done in a research way back in the 60s.
I happen to think thorium has a future, but its way off yet. There's lots of little nasty issue that need to be nailed down.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm sure its true though. However, although myself, I'm a fan of Nuclear, the issue of what happens when the plant is at the end of its life still seems to be a major issue cost wise.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"news" < snipped-for-privacy@news.salis.co.uk> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:12:24 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Doesn't seem to be a problem for the coal industry. Maybe because there there is no obvious large single bill for one place. Instead you have lots of relatively little ones spread out over a wide area and time paying for the subsidence...
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only for previously built stations.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.