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/blog...o-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

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

On 26/06/2013 16:27, news wrote:
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/blog...o-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)


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.

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

On 26/06/2013 17:15, newshound wrote:
On 26/06/2013 16:27, news wrote:
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/blog...o-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)

See the link below



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.

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

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.

This site has done the work:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html

Colin Bignell

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

On 26/06/13 17:15, newshound wrote:
On 26/06/2013 16:27, news wrote:
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/blog...o-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)


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.

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

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.

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

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.
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 are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

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

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" wrote in message
...
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/blog...o-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

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

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:12:24 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

the issue of what happens when the plant is at the end of its life still
seems to be a major issue cost wise.

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.