Puppeteer

Author Topic: The future of electric Vehicles.  (Read 16759 times)

BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2681
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #120 on: April 09, 2018, 11:53:44 PM »
In this Wikipedia article, under Economics, the heavy water CANDU designs are presented as an economic bust. 
This older design is used where unenriched fuel must be used for security/proliferation issues.  The fuel section covers more about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

The cost of power produced was substantially higher than coal or hydro.
An exerpt from the economic section in the link above:

"Based on Ontario's record, the economic performance of the CANDU system is quite poor. Although much attention has been focussed on the problems with the Darlington plant, every CANDU design in Ontario went over budget by at least 25%, and average over 150% higher than estimated.[67] Darlington was the worst, at 350% over budget"

Back to cars-  electric cars will be very popular as soon as the price comes down a bit, despite Glort's dislike and my concern about raising daily EMF exposure for the public, and I think that will happen in the next 4 years. Both Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf should be popular in the US.  Charging is a non issue for the consumer with home off peak charging with a range of 200 miles and daily average in the US under 40 miles. Charging by coal does nothing for CO2 reduction, obviously, but it's a good base load for nuclear power, today.  The improvement in air quality could save a lot of money for health costs as well.




glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #121 on: April 10, 2018, 01:32:47 AM »

Been looking at some YT vids.
There are a lot more people in the know saying electrics are not at all the great thing for the environment they are made out to be and why and also a lot more raising the power supply and emissions from that concerns.

Pretty obvious, unless the power put into the things is 100% renewable ( as in solar)  then they are just going to be using fossil fuel for the main part somewhere further down the line. Several vids I watched also raised the point that the emissions in making an electric with it's lithium battery is FAR greater than with a conventional vehicle.

Always the way. Whenever something is new and particularly when it's pushed as being green, the hype is spin doctored in a completely biased view to hide the ( many) negatives and skew things to look all fine and rosy.
And the worst part is people fall for it and never do any research beyond the fictitious headlines.

On another forum I had a bet that electrics would not represent the majority of the private/ car vehicle fleet in the next 20 years.
Was pretty funny as the predictable green washed members jumped in to rubbish that position and then the best they could come up with was there -Might- be 20% of cars on the road being electrics on that time.  Well, majority to me is 51%+ and 20% is a significant MINORITY.
Predictably the opposition to my wager fell off very quickly when even by their own supporting numbers, they  could not show my position was incorrect.

Maybe in 50 years the majority of cars on the roads ( or in the air) might be electric but to me that's far too  long away to be so hyped up about now.
I also think in 50 years there will be some other technology that will make the whole concept of cars as we know them obselete. We may be teleporting around and we may be using some other energy source that isn't even discovered now.

Actually more I think about it, the less I believe electrics will ever be the dominant road transport form of power.
Might be a bit of a distraction in the middle but mainstream, I certainly won't live near long enough to see it even if it does happen.


buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #122 on: April 10, 2018, 01:45:33 AM »
      The price of power from Darlington , Pickering and the Bruce was on par with coal fossil. The exorbitant retail price in Ontario is paying for subsidized wind, solar , gas , native partnered hydraulic and to pay the US to take surplus off peak power.   
     Darlington's cost over run was not 350%. The problem is a OPG capital generation project is not paid from reserve funds or operating fund budgets  during construction.
   All construction money is borrowed,  accumulating compound interest.  Until years later when the generating station is commissioned, THEN the payments are started on principal plus the accumulated compound interest. Remember interest rates in the early 1980's ?
       With the long lead time of months and years to manufacture components such as Heat Transport Pumps, boilers, pressure tubes, calandra parts, pretty much everything. The manufactures are paid on the contract's delivery date, no matter if the plant is ready for the components or not. When construction was frozen for 18 months, the penalties, fees and high interest rates snowballed.   
     A certain liberal Premier froze the Darlington construction while interest rates were over 20%. And when jobs were needed the most. If you want someone to blame.........there you go.
    As for Pickering restart in the late 1990's, Bruce units 1 & 2 and now Darlington.  OPG and Bruce power are doing the work "the American way" with outside contractors. There should be people doing jail time for what went on. btw the same cost overruns occur in hydraulic , fossil and transmission, not just Nuclear. Nuclear just gets the headlines.
   From the early to late 1980's . The Pickering A unit 2  retube was done from scratch, without tooling, spare parts or a plan with full time OPG staff and OPG construction . It took 2-1/2 years to return Unit #2 to service. By the 4th unit's retube, it took 9 months from main breaker open to main breaker close.
   How many years did it take Bruce 1 & 2 retube when they went into it with years of planning with external contractors. 7 years of filling offshore bank accounts in shady deals.   

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #123 on: April 10, 2018, 01:56:22 AM »
    The Candu design with it's high neutron efficiency and ability to thermally moderate neutrons was chosen for a couple of reasons.
   The previously mentioned ability to use natural fuel without the complications of enriching fuel.
   The ability to run on Thorium, MOX fuel and left over fuel from PWR reactors that a PWR and PBWR couldn't even maintain a chain reaction with . All without complex and expensive enrichment.
   The Candu with it's large and less concentrated core. Along with only a modest amount of positive reactivity vs an enriched PWR. It is like comparing a team of oxen vs a team of race horses. The Candu can't run away very far or very fast.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 12:06:40 AM by buickanddeere »

BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2681
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #124 on: April 10, 2018, 03:12:20 AM »
Good points on what happens when financing a huge capital project that runs long over schedule and runs into inflation and high interest rates.  Alas, these Ontario CANDU plants were all  the same design so it's pretty damning, economically.  The fuel flexibility and slower development of critical problems in CANDU are certainly big pluses. 

The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station is very impressive and I see that the major planned refurbishment starting in 2020 should take it to 2060.  I wonder if that's also part of the plus of the CANDU design, as that has not been the case for many US plants where refurbishment cost is deemed to exceed replacement cost.


BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2681
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #125 on: April 11, 2018, 11:42:37 PM »
I did a bit of reading and see that Ontario province has weaned itself off of coal entirely since 2014.  Impressive.

Nuclear isn't going to be optional for Canada,  I suspect, as their climate warrants a very high energy use per capita, ala Norway.

I did some reading on the newest nuclear molten salt designs and was impressed at the much greater inherent safety of the proposed designs;  there is no Fukishima event possible even with total loss of power and pumping capability.  The design also generates a fraction of the high level waste. 

A Canadian company, Terrestrial Energy, has a molten salt design that I hope will prove to be highly successful. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR

I've worked with a Canadian engineering firm on a military related project and my impression was that Canadian engineers are very capable and honest. They did their part of the R&D project very well, on time and budget, and were a pleasure to work with. Management is also more honest than in the US.  Canada's safety record has been quite good, comparatively.  So far only one ''Homer Simpson'' type operator error dumping tritium in Lake Ontario and a couple fuel rod failures...one with a total loss of the plant.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-closer-look-at-canada-s-nuclear-plants-1.1194756


 

« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 11:50:19 PM by BruceM »

glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #126 on: April 12, 2018, 01:07:51 AM »

Every nuke reactor has supposedly been safe, foolproof and better than the others that have  had problems.

Trouble is even if that were true, ( and 99% is industry bullshit!) they never take the old " Dangerous" reactors off line even when they are fully aware of their problems, limitations and potential for disaster.  What does happen repeatedly is these old reactors are pushed beyond their intended design lives with their inherent problems and weaknesses being well known so they can continue to pose the huge danger they do to the whole damn planet and everything on it.

Hopefully the green movement will achieve something VERY worth while in seeing no more nukes are ever built.
Wishful thinking but something worth hoping for.

I cannot think of a more real or significant danger to mankind than nuke reactors. Forget about globull warming and co2, over population and all the rest of it.  A nuke accident has the ability to affect life on planet earth tomorrow and I suspect we are already ALL being poisoned and detrimentaly affected by the accidents that are already happening. 
Happening because they never actually come to an end.

dieselspanner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #127 on: April 12, 2018, 01:23:20 PM »

Hopefully the green movement will achieve something VERY worth while in seeing no more nukes are ever built.
Wishful thinking but something worth hoping for.


Would this be the same 'greenwashed bunch of clowns' you've slagged off in almost every other thread, Glort?

Cheers
Stef

Tighten 'til it strips, weld nut to chassis, peen stud, adjust with angle grinder.

glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #128 on: April 12, 2018, 02:47:53 PM »

Yes, it would be exactly them!

I detect an implication of hypocrisy in your comment.  I would refer to the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 
In this case, I consider Nukes to be a far greater enemy than any one or thing on this earth for the simple reason it has such immense potential to take us all out so quick and so easily.  I reckon some of the greenwashed ( and honestly concerned) might even welcome me into their ranks for the very same reasons.  We have a combined enemy and a united position on this issue.
 
I have no problem backing anyone if they do something worthwhile and productive. That's my major issue with the  green cause, it's more about money than doing things that are beneficial for the planet.  The world has to tolerate  all this over the top green washed rubbish and all problems it causes so if for once they can do something worthwhile, I will back them all the way.

I will admit, I am sometimes torn between deciding who is the cause of the issues I have with the green movement. There is a lot of gubbermint and big business influence that don't give a shit about the cause they feign support for, they are only interested in the $$ and thats clearly demonstrated and Inarguable.  There are the vocal and idiotic private elements who are ignorant and one track minded and just think that everything should be what they see as green tomorrow and will rant and rave in complete ignorance.

Then I suspect there are those that are rational, supportive and honest in their intentions and beliefs.
I have a good and old friend like that. He does what he can, puts his money where his mouth is to support his beliefs but looks at the big and true picture and has no hesitation to call BS when he sees it because he's concerned with doing the right thing for the environment not just doing the " green " thing.
There is a big difference between the 2 if one is honest and truly believes in their position on this.

My friend does not just go out and spend money because something is labeled green. He looks into it and makes informed and honest choices. He recently renovated his house and was telling me about all the products pushed as supposedly being green which he found when looking into their production and composition were far more detrimental to run of the mill things that never made any environmental claims at all. He drives a regular diesel vehicle and can bury you in facts and figures about how for his needs, this is the least damaging choice and why he'd never own a current hybrid/ electric and the environmental drawbacks they have in production, disposal and in between. 

He's anything but greenwashed, he's honest to himself and makes real effort to make sure his actions are the best he can do to support the cause he believes in. My admiration for him and his honesty is Immense and if they put him or somone like him in charge of the green movement and looking after the earth, then real and beneficial change would occur.

I doubt your see him screaming about closing coal fired power stations but nukes would be wound down as soon as there was any sort of viable alternative. You would see him trying to get solar on every roof possibly lessen demand on the grid the same as he has. He wouldn't be spending Millions building BS batteries in the middle of the dessert for companies to profit from but he would be subsidizing  home batteries to again create a real and significant reductions in emissions from non nuke sources where it would count. 
 I'm sure he would put an end to many industrial practices and waste and put tangible benefits over profit. We have discussed all this at length and many times.

He would change the world for the better be his actions be deemed green or not. The environment and the planet would become cleaner and more sustainable.


I am not in any way against saving the environment/ planet etc, what shits me to tears is the endless bullshit people/ entity's go on with PRETENDING they are doing something when 9 times out of 10 their ideas, proposals and actions actually cause more harm than the ways and methods they are so against.... or are based on profit not benefit at all. 

It's about damn time this green religion did something of real and tangible benefit and stopping any more nukes being built would be a huge step forward for the entire world

I'll back it all the way even if Jack the Ripper is behind it. 

 

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #129 on: April 13, 2018, 07:55:26 PM »
I did a bit of reading and see that Ontario province has weaned itself off of coal entirely since 2014.  Impressive.

Nuclear isn't going to be optional for Canada,  I suspect, as their climate warrants a very high energy use per capita, ala Norway.

I did some reading on the newest nuclear molten salt designs and was impressed at the much greater inherent safety of the proposed designs;  there is no Fukishima event possible even with total loss of power and pumping capability.  The design also generates a fraction of the high level waste. 

A Canadian company, Terrestrial Energy, has a molten salt design that I hope will prove to be highly successful. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR

I've worked with a Canadian engineering firm on a military related project and my impression was that Canadian engineers are very capable and honest. They did their part of the R&D project very well, on time and budget, and were a pleasure to work with. Management is also more honest than in the US.  Canada's safety record has been quite good, comparatively.  So far only one ''Homer Simpson'' type operator error dumping tritium in Lake Ontario and a couple fuel rod failures...one with a total loss of the plant.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-closer-look-at-canada-s-nuclear-plants-1.1194756

What nuclear power plant  was a loss ?
The D2O originally came out of the lake . That little bit of tritium in the D2O compared to an emergency exit sign . Is like comparing a birthday cake to a forrest fire .
   Load following peaking power is still supplied by fossil, natural gas instead of coal.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 08:05:58 PM by buickanddeere »

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #130 on: April 13, 2018, 08:12:18 PM »

Yes, it would be exactly them!

I detect an implication of hypocrisy in your comment.  I would refer to the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 
In this case, I consider Nukes to be a far greater enemy than any one or thing on this earth for the simple reason it has such immense potential to take us all out so quick and so easily.  I reckon some of the greenwashed ( and honestly concerned) might even welcome me into their ranks for the very same reasons.  We have a combined enemy and a united position on this issue.
 
I have no problem backing anyone if they do something worthwhile and productive. That's my major issue with the  green cause, it's more about money than doing things that are beneficial for the planet.  The world has to tolerate  all this over the top green washed rubbish and all problems it causes so if for once they can do something worthwhile, I will back them all the way.

I will admit, I am sometimes torn between deciding who is the cause of the issues I have with the green movement. There is a lot of gubbermint and big business influence that don't give a shit about the cause they feign support for, they are only interested in the $$ and thats clearly demonstrated and Inarguable.  There are the vocal and idiotic private elements who are ignorant and one track minded and just think that everything should be what they see as green tomorrow and will rant and rave in complete ignorance.

Then I suspect there are those that are rational, supportive and honest in their intentions and beliefs.
I have a good and old friend like that. He does what he can, puts his money where his mouth is to support his beliefs but looks at the big and true picture and has no hesitation to call BS when he sees it because he's concerned with doing the right thing for the environment not just doing the " green " thing.
There is a big difference between the 2 if one is honest and truly believes in their position on this.

My friend does not just go out and spend money because something is labeled green. He looks into it and makes informed and honest choices. He recently renovated his house and was telling me about all the products pushed as supposedly being green which he found when looking into their production and composition were far more detrimental to run of the mill things that never made any environmental claims at all. He drives a regular diesel vehicle and can bury you in facts and figures about how for his needs, this is the least damaging choice and why he'd never own a current hybrid/ electric and the environmental drawbacks they have in production, disposal and in between. 

He's anything but greenwashed, he's honest to himself and makes real effort to make sure his actions are the best he can do to support the cause he believes in. My admiration for him and his honesty is Immense and if they put him or somone like him in charge of the green movement and looking after the earth, then real and beneficial change would occur.

I doubt your see him screaming about closing coal fired power stations but nukes would be wound down as soon as there was any sort of viable alternative. You would see him trying to get solar on every roof possibly lessen demand on the grid the same as he has. He wouldn't be spending Millions building BS batteries in the middle of the dessert for companies to profit from but he would be subsidizing  home batteries to again create a real and significant reductions in emissions from non nuke sources where it would count. 
 I'm sure he would put an end to many industrial practices and waste and put tangible benefits over profit. We have discussed all this at length and many times.

He would change the world for the better be his actions be deemed green or not. The environment and the planet would become cleaner and more sustainable.


I am not in any way against saving the environment/ planet etc, what shits me to tears is the endless bullshit people/ entity's go on with PRETENDING they are doing something when 9 times out of 10 their ideas, proposals and actions actually cause more harm than the ways and methods they are so against.... or are based on profit not benefit at all. 

It's about damn time this green religion did something of real and tangible benefit and stopping any more nukes being built would be a huge step forward for the entire world

I'll back it all the way even if Jack the Ripper is behind it.

  The damage from nuclear accidents is over stated . Look at the other environmental damage from other industry and nuclear is a tiny fraction.
   Is lead , cadmium, arsenic, asbestos,  PCB’s , plastics and dioxins a hazard to health? They just lack nuclear which causes some weaker folk to have an irrational knee jerk reaction and panic.
   How about the millions of people living on ground zero of two atomic warhead blasts . Does  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind ?

buickanddeere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #131 on: April 13, 2018, 08:14:44 PM »

Yes, it would be exactly them!

I detect an implication of hypocrisy in your comment.  I would refer to the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
 
In this case, I consider Nukes to be a far greater enemy than any one or thing on this earth for the simple reason it has such immense potential to take us all out so quick and so easily.  I reckon some of the greenwashed ( and honestly concerned) might even welcome me into their ranks for the very same reasons.  We have a combined enemy and a united position on this issue.
 
I have no problem backing anyone if they do something worthwhile and productive. That's my major issue with the  green cause, it's more about money than doing things that are beneficial for the planet.  The world has to tolerate  all this over the top green washed rubbish and all problems it causes so if for once they can do something worthwhile, I will back them all the way.

I will admit, I am sometimes torn between deciding who is the cause of the issues I have with the green movement. There is a lot of gubbermint and big business influence that don't give a shit about the cause they feign support for, they are only interested in the $$ and thats clearly demonstrated and Inarguable.  There are the vocal and idiotic private elements who are ignorant and one track minded and just think that everything should be what they see as green tomorrow and will rant and rave in complete ignorance.

Then I suspect there are those that are rational, supportive and honest in their intentions and beliefs.
I have a good and old friend like that. He does what he can, puts his money where his mouth is to support his beliefs but looks at the big and true picture and has no hesitation to call BS when he sees it because he's concerned with doing the right thing for the environment not just doing the " green " thing.
There is a big difference between the 2 if one is honest and truly believes in their position on this.

My friend does not just go out and spend money because something is labeled green. He looks into it and makes informed and honest choices. He recently renovated his house and was telling me about all the products pushed as supposedly being green which he found when looking into their production and composition were far more detrimental to run of the mill things that never made any environmental claims at all. He drives a regular diesel vehicle and can bury you in facts and figures about how for his needs, this is the least damaging choice and why he'd never own a current hybrid/ electric and the environmental drawbacks they have in production, disposal and in between. 

He's anything but greenwashed, he's honest to himself and makes real effort to make sure his actions are the best he can do to support the cause he believes in. My admiration for him and his honesty is Immense and if they put him or somone like him in charge of the green movement and looking after the earth, then real and beneficial change would occur.

I doubt your see him screaming about closing coal fired power stations but nukes would be wound down as soon as there was any sort of viable alternative. You would see him trying to get solar on every roof possibly lessen demand on the grid the same as he has. He wouldn't be spending Millions building BS batteries in the middle of the dessert for companies to profit from but he would be subsidizing  home batteries to again create a real and significant reductions in emissions from non nuke sources where it would count. 
 I'm sure he would put an end to many industrial practices and waste and put tangible benefits over profit. We have discussed all this at length and many times.

He would change the world for the better be his actions be deemed green or not. The environment and the planet would become cleaner and more sustainable.


I am not in any way against saving the environment/ planet etc, what shits me to tears is the endless bullshit people/ entity's go on with PRETENDING they are doing something when 9 times out of 10 their ideas, proposals and actions actually cause more harm than the ways and methods they are so against.... or are based on profit not benefit at all. 

It's about damn time this green religion did something of real and tangible benefit and stopping any more nukes being built would be a huge step forward for the entire world

I'll back it all the way even if Jack the Ripper is behind it.

  The damage from nuclear accidents is over stated . Look at the other environmental damage from other industry and nuclear is a tiny fraction.
   Is lead , cadmium, arsenic, asbestos,  PCB’s , plastics and dioxins a hazard to health? They just lack nuclear which causes some weaker folk to have an irrational knee jerk reaction and panic.
   How about the millions of people living on ground zero of two atomic warhead blasts . Does  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind ?
   Here is no alternative for economical, clean and safe baseload power except nuclear .
   It is not possible to built enough lithium battery backup capacity to supply power with wind and solar generation .

BruceM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2681
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #132 on: April 13, 2018, 09:23:14 PM »
There's a good article on Thorium reactors on Wikipedia that covers some of the unfortunate design decisions that led to the current reactors with the inherent risk of melt down and explosion ala Fukishima, etc., and the generation of lots of very "hot" waste.  Both were avoidable.

Basically, the US military pressure for nuclear weapons grade plutonium guided the decision away from safer designs with much less and much shorter half life waste.  The thorium fuel designed plant that was built in the 60's was operated for a number of years successfully.  They fired the guy who ran it and openly promoted it's inherent melt-down proof design.  Raising safety issues was not acceptable, we had bombs to build.  He has been vindicated, in my mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

The present designs should never have been built in large numbers, and the continued work on safer (ala thorium or molten salt) designs should not have been abandoned AFTER being successful.  CANDU was a step in the right direction but not nearly far enough.  There is a difference between "safe if we don't hire Homer Simpson or have Mr Burns managing", and safe by inherent design, where at any time and with any number of failures, plant operators could walk away and there will not be melt down, explosion and contamination of the air and water.  There will still be Homer Simpson type incidents, because all you can hire are humans, but sadly, there were well proven design approaches that would have prevented Fukishima.

So linking nuclear bombs to fission plants, while seemly irrational, is in fact what got us into this particular mess.  And it does raise the issue as to the ability of our various regulatory agencies to be able to make good decisions for the public when real threats to public safety are present. Eisenhower tried to warn us about the excessive influence of the military industrial complex and this is a prime example of just that.


A key section from Wikipedia to get your interest up:
After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons. During that period, the government of the United States also built an experimental molten salt reactor using U-233 fuel, the fissile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The MSRE reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969. In 1968, Nobel laureate and discoverer of plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, publicly announced to the Atomic Energy Commission, of which he was chairman, that the thorium-based reactor had been successfully developed and tested.

In 1973, however, the US government settled on uranium technology and largely discontinued thorium-related nuclear research. The reasons were that uranium-fueled reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and thorium's breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry. As Moir and Teller later wrote, "The competition came down to a liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) on the uranium-plutonium cycle and a thermal reactor on the thorium-233U cycle, the molten salt breeder reactor. The LMFBR had a larger breeding rate ... and won the competition." In their opinion, the decision to stop development of thorium reactors, at least as a backup option, “was an excusable mistake.”[4]

Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed development of the safer thorium reactors.[7][8] Weinberg himself recalls this period:

    [Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy." I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[9]

Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:

    Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[10]

Despite the documented history of thorium nuclear power, many of today’s nuclear experts were nonetheless unaware of it. According to Chemical & Engineering News, "most people—including scientists—have hardly heard of the heavy-metal element and know little about it...," noting a comment by a conference attendee that "it's possible to have a Ph.D. in nuclear reactor technology and not know about thorium energy."[11] Nuclear physicist Victor J. Stenger, for one, first learned of it in 2012:

    It came as a surprise to me to learn recently that such an alternative has been available to us since World War II, but not pursued because it lacked weapons applications.[12]

Others, including former NASA scientist and thorium expert Kirk Sorensen, agree that "thorium was the alternative path that was not taken … "[13][14]:2 According to Sorensen, during a documentary interview, he states that if the US had not discontinued its research in 1974 it could have "probably achieved energy independence by around 2000."[15]




« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 09:50:43 PM by BruceM »

glort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2859
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #133 on: April 13, 2018, 10:04:24 PM »


  The damage from nuclear accidents is over stated . Look at the other environmental damage from other industry and nuclear is a tiny fraction.
   Is lead , cadmium, arsenic, asbestos,  PCB’s , plastics and dioxins a hazard to health? They just lack nuclear which causes some weaker folk to have an irrational knee jerk reaction and panic.
   How about the millions of people living on ground zero of two atomic warhead blasts . Does  Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind ?
   Here is no alternative for economical, clean and safe baseload power except nuclear .


Does Fukushima and Chernobyl Register with you at all?  There is no way to fully state the amount and severity of the damage from any nuke accident let alone over state it. That's already been proven beyond doubt.

Please stop insulting us with your ludicrous and biased lies and absolute drivel. 
It's clear you are employed or have financial interest in the nuke industry and will spew any ridiculous crap in an effort to defend the hand that feeds and brainwashes you. Maybe you have been drinking the heavy water like others have Drunk the Coolaide.
Either that or you are the most ignorant fool on the entire internet.

No one is buying your ridiculous garbage so enough already.

mikenash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
    • View Profile
Re: The future of electric Vehicles.
« Reply #134 on: April 13, 2018, 10:31:39 PM »

Well, here's the thing Mr Glort

Firstly and most importantly folks like Mr Buickand Deere and Bruce M are entitled both to express an opinion and to have that opinion listened to or disagreed with without suffering personal attacks.  To coherently attack their arguements would be the work of an intelligent and thoughtful man.  To attack them personally, just because you happen to disagree with them . . .

Secondly, they have valid points.  Death and damage from nuclear plant accidents make great headlines and receive wide coverage because they are "newsworthy" - that is, lots of folks will read/watch a story about them, so a large pool of readers is delivered to advertisers; which is what media news is all about after all

However, the slow, steady, daily killers such as air pollution from the dirty old coal plants run in third world countries, the endless deaths in the unregulated mines supplying the coal; or the infant mortality rates in third world countries where unregulated mining poisons the rivers that feed poor communities; or the endless toll of workers killed, mutilated or crippled with industrial diseases in the third-world sweatshops that supply out iPhones, laptops and cheap shoes . . . these slow, relentless, daily killers account for more lives every week than the nuclear industry has over its whole lifetime.  But they aren't "news"

A little bit of balance and a little bit of courtesy might help here

I've got a few days off next week and I'm off up to my off-grid site in the Bay of Plenty where there's an old Dursley 6/1 I bought a while back waiting for me to fit a new pump and injector.  I'm going to do my small bit to add to the pollution, I guess

Just my $0.02