Doug Vining An interesting scenario...

Perhaps we might have a system of 'Carbon Credits' vs 'Nuclear Debits'. In my opinion, the greens will never be for nuclear, and a final solution for the waste issue will not be universally acceptable. I think we will see personal fuel cells running on alchohol from crops long before we see personal reactors.
Posted: 26 July 2004 at 00:00

Anton Musgrave Explode the Enrons?

This is fascinating indeed - what about energy saving, energy recycling, energy efficiency etc plus this - end of energy companies and death of all future Enrons but for different reasons!
Posted: 26 July 2004 at 00:00

Wolfgang Grulke Amazing article about 'the nuclear myth'

In October 2004 The Spectator published a special issue on the nuclear future - and explodes some interesting myths. 'Official' statistics quoted on Chernobyl state that 15 000 died and 50 000 were crippled by radiation. Their investigation showed that the numbers were 1 000 for both categories, not 65 000. While 1 000 is still bad, what happened and why are we being fed these strange facts? See the new link above.
Posted: 1 November 2004 at 18:25

Wolfgang Grulke Two sides moving apart

I just attended a conference where the solar energy product manufacturers launched a massive attack on nuclear fuels. It seems that commercial interest is now forcing people to gang up with greens against everything nuclear. Like in any war, the first victim is the truth!
Posted: 3 November 2004 at 17:25

Wolfgang Grulke US announces new energy strategy

Today the US announced a major new energy strategy to "protect it from dependence on imported fuels". Core to this is the immediate focus on more nuclear power plants as a source of "safe and clean energy". "We have fallen behind France and China due to bureacratic obstacles in our own government" said Bush making the announcement.
Posted: 27 April 2005 at 21:41

Frank Winter The best option for nuclear waste...

Technology Review has a great insight here: "We don't know how to store it forever. Let's leave the solution to a generation that will". The solution is simple. Let's just find a way to store it safely for 100 years (we have those ways) and then someone will have come up with a proper solution.
Posted: 23 August 2005 at 15:44

Wolfgang Grulke Wired gets it!

Have a look at the articles in the May 2008 edition of Wired magazine... http://www.wired.com/wired/issue/16-06 - it really mirrors this MindBullet of a few years ago!
Posted: 29 May 2008 at 12:43

Neil Jacobsohn Nuclear has a powerful ally!

There is so much hot air in he nuclear (or anti-nuclear) debate - and so much uninformed commentary on both sides. So here's a really interesting position from an acclaimed scientist, and the "godfather" of the climate change debate. Read on!
A FuturesForum post (titled: "Nuclear has a powerful ally!") refers to this MindBullet. The full FuturesForum post can be read here: http://www.futureworld.org/PublicZone/FuturesForum/BlogDetails.aspx?PostID=40a04fda-64b2-45f2-9401-c7bd9ee5d87c
Posted: 8 April 2013 at 18:28

Neil Jacobsohn Who thinks nuclear is dead?

So who thinks nuclear is dead? This is a fascinating read why Japan, even after the Fukushima disaster, is turning back to nuclear energy.
A FuturesForum post (titled: "Who thinks nuclear is dead?") refers to this MindBullet. The full FuturesForum post can be read here: http://www.futureworld.org/PublicZone/FuturesForum/BlogDetails.aspx?PostID=939c8ad8-1eb1-4f75-bf2b-f71ebe33b876
Posted: 12 March 2014 at 09:21

Doug Vining Who thinks nuclear is dead?

I don't think nuclear power is dead yet, but the old model of massively costly uranium fission reactors is certainly a non-starter for a new energy future. These old, paid-for plants in Japan are certainly cheaper to run, even if the cost of restarting them is high, than imported fuel, but it's not a sustainable model for new power plant construction. Remember that all the spent fuel has to be actively stored and cooled for hundreds of years.

What the nuclear industry needs for a long term renaissance is a new model, using thorium or radically new technologies to make them cheaper and more modular, burning up old fuel. That's quite a technical hurdle, and may be eclipsed by something much better, like the current developments in 'cold fusion'.

But for developing countries, like South Africa (who are currently mulling procurement of 9600MW of new nuclear capacity) the existing designs are unaffordable by comparison to solar (which gets cheaper all the time) and gas (which is so flexible), and lock you into decades of old technology, with inevitable escalations and no opportunity to switch to entirely new energy paradigms.

We've often said that the future of electric power is away from massive centrally controlled utilities, and more towards distributed micro generation and collaborative consumption, with smart grids and solid state efficiencies. The construction of new massive nuclear plants goes directly against that trend, and reduces our chances of breaking ...
Posted: 12 March 2014 at 10:18
Comments by users of MindBullets are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared, endorsed and/or warranted by FutureWorld. All MindBullet content is Copyright FutureWorld International © 2019. All Rights Reserved.