Read for yourself: Letter from leading climate scientists to environmentalists

[PamW]

An open letter from the leading climate scientists to environmentalists:

https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/Vs6Csiv1xYr

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[Turbineguy]

1. I think the problem with nuclear power

is not so much the physics, but the people who build the the plants and run them.

[silverweb]

2. And dispose of radioactive waste.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]n/t

[PamW]

3. Waste is a political problem; NOT a technical one.

silverweb,

The scientists that designed our nuclear power plants, also SOLVED the radioactive waste disposal problem. The solution is to reprocess / recycle the waste. The problem is that Congress, at the behest of the anti-nukes OUTLAWED the solution back in 1978. Other countries didn't do that; and don't have a waste disposal problem.

Nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till, formerly of Argonne National Lab describes how the process would work:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

With reprocessing / recycling, GONE are the radioactive wastes that last tens of thousands of years. The lifetimes of the waste are what Dr. Till describes above.

PamW

[silverweb]

4. Until ALL of the problems are solved, it doesn't matter.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Nuclear energy is a risky proposition because the potential for very, very long-term disaster is always present the way things stand right now.

I will continue to oppose nuclear energy unless and until ALL of these problems are permanently solved not in theory, but in practice, every day, 100% of the time -- scientifically, politically, and in every other respect.

And why bother? What's the point when there are much safer alternatives already available, moving forward rapidly, and constantly becoming more efficient, reliable, and cost effective?

So power generation becomes decentralized and the big generating companies lose out. That's what this is really about. Good. It's about time.

[PamW]

5. Try reading the WHOLE article.

The Integral Fast Reactor that Argonne designed has solved ALL the outstanding problems.

The reactor is inherently safe, it produces short-lived waste, it is proliferation resistant.

The Integral Fast Reactor wasn't just a theory; it ACTUALLY OPERATED at the Argonne-West site at the Idaho National Engineering Lab.

As Dr. Till describes, the safety tests were done on an ACTUAL RUNNING REACTOR.

It wasn't just a theory or calculation that says the IFR is safe; but EXPERIMENT

To a scientist, like myself; the experiment is the definitive answer.

You are misinformed that there are other technologies that can do the job. No less than the National Academy of Science and Engineering has said that in order for the grid to be stable, non-dispatchable technologies like wind, solar, and other renewables, can be AT MOST about 20% of generation capacity.

That's what the 4 signatories are also saying. They explicitly say that solar and wind are "not enough"

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[silverweb]

7. I have nothing further to say.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Nuclear energy must be phased out.

It is not in any respect worth the inherent risks -- and it may even already be too late.

Fukushima Crisis - Dr. Mitsuhei Murata

[Nihil]

8. Yep.

Physics just *is*.
It isn't unreliable; it isn't corrupt; it doesn't change the rules for the purpose of greed;
it doesn't pretend to behave differently so that people will vote for it or any of the other
pathetic excuses that are used in an attempt to shield the truth from the unknowing.

People however are the source of all non-trivial problems and nuclear power is most
definitely on that list.

[GliderGuider]

6. Two comments

1. Until the public acceptance issue is solved, nuclear power is going nowhere - no matter how save or unsafe it might be.

The next comment applies to all low-carbon sources:

2. How do we ensure that low-carbon sources actually displace fossil fuel use on a global level, rather than being additive as they currently appear to be?

[PamW]

9. You're right on there!

GliderGuider states
Until the public acceptance issue is solved, nuclear power is going nowhere - no matter how save or unsafe it might be.

You are right on there!

So how do we deal with the public acceptance problem.

I see one solution - EDUCATION

There is so much misinformation, and propaganda masquerading as "science", and a public that doesn't have a good grasp of science, and is unable to identify the fakes for what they are.

That's one of the reasons I'm here.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.

PamW