<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Why nuclear power still matters ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T04:57:19-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[New Umbrella Terms needed: NU2CLEAR and NuGen2 (for Thorium &amp; IFR)]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42697]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thanks @YetAnotherBlob for the informative comment. It justifies itself as a miniarticle for the information in contains. It really show how well-learned you are.However, I am afraid many of the readers here have missed out on the hidden nuggets of wisdom. Maybe someone (lika an editor at smartplanet), should expand and explain the terms, or the background facts (such as how the Ricther Scale works), that you have taken its understanding among the public for granted.Along these same lines, be it IFR or Thorium cycle, the general human psyche do not care for scary names that carry an old stigma. Look at this problem from a pyschological perspective. Give these technologies a NEW UMBRELLA NAME. Something like &quot;Nu2clear&quot; or &quot;Nu Gen 2&quot; Technology. History has shown us that human beings need to be rushed into a new era via symbolic totems.(And form the proverbial carrot and sticks: Begin to market and subsidize these &quot;NuGen2 technologies&quot; as we outlaw classic &quot;nuclear technologies&quot;. Every switch involves labour pains, but always better to move than to suffer afterwards.)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42697]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[evofx]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 23:07:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Check the facts on San Onofre]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42480]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are near major faults, but I am not at all convinced that they are vulnerable to tsunamis.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42480]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[barryschaeffer]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 15:40:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Solar and Wind Subsidies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42495]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[When the feds held up the loan guarantees for solar and wind, their respective industries came unglued until Congress renewed them.  Solar and wind would not exist either if the feds didn't guarantee their loans.    See link below:http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/1708]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42495]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[barryschaeffer]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 15:38:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Tucker's comment on nuclear]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42246]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[To assess impacts by weight as Tucker does is extremely naive. Infinitely small particles of radioactive substances can wreak havoc in humans, cause cancer and disfigure our offspring. Small impact? We are all part of this environment and nuclear waste is a reality that can kill us and it stays in this environment for thousands of years. Wake up Tucker!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42246]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Eva Schlottmann]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 15:11:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Re:RE:Why neculear power still matters]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42209]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[First, we don't need to develop &quot;better&quot; alternatives when nuclear power IS the best option.Second, you can't blame Chernobyl on the U.S.  The worst U.S. nuclear reactor disaster was Three Mile Island, and the radiation exposure from the radioactive steam released has been calculated to effect .05 people.  The leak was so small that more people get cancer from weeding their garden without wearing sunscreen than they do from the Three Mile Island &quot;disaster&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42209]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[sethhc]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 10:24:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Govt subsidies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42160]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The fed govt underwrites the nuke industry's insurance. No private company will. The industry would not exist except for this.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-42160]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mendy11954]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 05:23:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Fusion Power]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41902]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Re:  &quot;It's my belief that we can use nuclear energy safely and efficiently. If we embrace the technology of smaller fusion plants, more widely spaced, instead of going for the mega plant it seems we'd be on the right track.&quot;  alaskagirl May 03, 2011 @ 1:07 PM PDTI agree, though fusion power has been in research for decades and no feasible design has yet been established.  For the time being, we can come close to this concept of small distributed nuclear power sources by deploying thorium and traveling wave reactors.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41902]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cardhun@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 11:18:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Educational Failure]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41697]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Re:  &quot;after the Pacific Ocean dies and the West Coast of the US has millions of cancer deaths due to the Fukushima Nuclear disaster, maybe idiots who defend nuclear power will see the light.&quot;  GAArcher April 29, 2011 @6:52 AM PDTRather, after these earnestly wished-for disasters don't materialize, the above predictions will look very foolish.***Edit:http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cancer/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100272067&amp;GT1=31036***GAArcher's post is alarming for how such a clear lack of even the most basic science education can be the product of any technological society.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41697]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cardhun@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2011 11:08:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&amp;quot;Renewable Energy Is Available Now&amp;quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41709]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Re:  &quot;The only sane choice is renewable energy. It is competitive now, it is clean, it is safe and it will never run out.&quot;Renewable energy sources provide a mere 3.6% of America's energy.  It will take decades of the largest engineering effort ever attempted in all of human history to increase that proportion by even one order of magnitude, much less provide a majority of America's energy needs.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41709]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cardhun@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2011 10:44:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nuclear Energy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41417]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's my belief that we can use nuclear energy safely and efficiently.  If we embrace the technology of smaller fusion plants, more widely spaced, instead of going for the mega plant it seems we'd be on the right track.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41417]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[alaskagirl]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 13:07:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Lack of knowledge/understanding hampers nuclear power.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41378]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The picture at the top for this article just struck me.  I don't think the population at large will ever be able to have a rational discussion concerning nuclear power.  It certainly isn't ready now, when the publically recognized symbol for nuclear power continues to be a hyperbolic cooling tower which absolutely has no inherent/specific relationship with nuclear power.  I've long argued that nuclear is an industry driven by perception and not by technologically based knowledge.  Its actually sad.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41378]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[garys5604]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 05:05:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nuclear Approval with Better Safety]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41353]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm all for more Nuclear Power but more safety is needed! It was terrible what happen to Japan but let us use that to set up our safety measures.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41353]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[tdhclueless50@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 12:53:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[DU isn't very radioactive.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41310]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's less so than granite. The issue with all that U238 isn't radioactivity, it's where to put it. The stuff burns hotter than magnesium (which is why the military like it, after a shell penetrates a tank the ensuing fire kills everyone inside) and is fairly toxic until chemically bound.Note also that &quot;statistically raised rates of lukemia&quot;, is a rise of less than 1% over background rates. Going from 0.3 to 0.6 is a 100% rise but there are a huge number of other variables and chemical toxins are more likely to cause cancers than radiological ones (compare the cancer rates around Hiroshima and Love Canal for 2 examples.) Burning coal gives _much_ higher cancer rates downwind than anything cited above.The issue with cooling water during heatwaves is valid BUT coal stations had to reduce output in the same period for exactly the same reason - the issue wasn't &quot;insufficient cooling water&quot;, it was limits on the temperature rise allowed in the rivers. This case would be addressed by better (more efficient) heat engines and more use of multistage heat scavenging to convert more of the reactor's output energy to electricity.Uranium mines are fairly benign. There are _no_ radioactive metals and most of the mining related illnesses are silicosis types - modern techniques don't expose miners to dust. Uranium mine tailings are normally  _less_ radioactive than their surroundings but there is always the issue of noxious chemicals (sounds just like coal, doesn't it?)Decomissioning costs _are_ high, but for some reason the environmental &amp; economic costs of cleaning up around coal mines and power stations seems to slip your mind. I know of multiple coal stations where the costs have gone up 200-fold due to the discovery of blue asbestos during dismantling.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41310]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Uncle Stoat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 10:00:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Any kind of design which will burn &amp;quot;waste&amp;quot; is worth investigating]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41315]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Unfortunately the oxide form which light water reactors need is an impediment to TWRs and the waste will need significant reprocessing (read - contamination risk and lots of politics) to be able to be used in a TWR - however they're still a &quot;very good idea&quot; for fuelled from scratch designs.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41315]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Uncle Stoat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 09:40:16 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Subsidies yes, but....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41306]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Heavy restrictions on the way things are done, AND the subsidies led to a lack of will to use improved designs.All that &quot;high level waste&quot; is unburned fuel that can easily be reused but which *might* be a tempting target for terrorists if reprocessed outside the reactor.Better design (most older designs are modified nuclear submarine cores - built for size, not efficiency or safety) leads to better safety AND to the ability to better extract the potential energy.Regarding waste heat - ALL heat based generation systems (eg, coal, oil) are only 30% or so efficient. There are a number of ways of scavenging the heat for other uses - banks of low-temp 10kW Sterling engines (but maintenance costs are an issue), neighbourhood heat distribution systems and (paradoxically) driving chiller systems using recent innovations to the old ammonia refrigeration cycle (see solarfrost.com)All the nuclear leaks from all the world's reactors combined are far less than the total radioactivity pollution from one year's worth of coal burning - and don't forget the USA atmospheric tests put the equivalent of 3 chernobyls into the USA midwest environment in the 1950s/60s but nobody noticed a thing...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41306]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Uncle Stoat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 09:18:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Subsidies yes, but....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41305]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Heavy restrictions on the way things are done, AND the subsidies led to a lack of will to use improved designs.All that &quot;high level waste&quot; is unburned fuel that can easily be reused but which *might* be a tempting target for terrorists if reprocessed outside the reactor.Better design (most older designs are modified nuclear submarine cores - built for size, not efficiency or safety) leads to better safety AND to the ability to better extract the potential energy.Regarding waste heat - ALL heat based generation systems (eg, coal, oil) are only 30% or so efficient. There are a number of ways of scavenging the heat for other uses - banks of low-temp 10kW Sterling engines (but maintenance costs are an issue), neighbourhood heat distribution systems and (paradoxically) driving chiller systems using recent innovations to the old ammonia refrigeration cycle (see solarfrost.com)All the nuclear leaks from all the world's reactors combined are far less than the total radioactivity pollution from one year's worth of coal burning - and don't forget the USA atmospheric tests put the equivalent of 3 chernobyls into the USA midwest environment in the 1950s/60s but nobody noticed a thing...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41305]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Uncle Stoat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 09:18:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[heat-recovery ventilation is a must in an airtight building.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41314]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Enough said, look it up.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41314]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Uncle Stoat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 09:09:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Use Thorium Not Uranium Reactors.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41300]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[They are chaeper, smaller, safer, do not produce highly reactive waste and can not go critical.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41300]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dbaechtel]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:14:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Don't you know that killing the messenger....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41285]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...doesn't change the content of the message?  Show me what the subsidies on the Asian nuclear power are, please, and you'll realize that the solar subsidies are paltry in comparison. The reality is exactly what Amory is talking about, by the way: utilities and investors are lining up to invest in solar and wind compared to putting their money into the behemoths of new coal, carbon sequestration technologies and nuclear.  And it's a simple financial calculation based on returns, on the ability to make affordable electricity, which nuclear and new coal simply have been unable to do in the US---even with their subsidies, which are much larger than solar and wind.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41285]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[klassman6]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:17:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nuclear Power]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41150]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Andrew Nusca needs to pack it up and move to Sundai Japan. I am sure there are plenty of Japanese residents who have lost their homes from the nuclear disaster who would gladly let him live there. And after the Pacific Ocean dies and the West Coast of the US has millions of cancer deaths due to the Fukushima Nuclear disaster, maybe idiots who defend nuclear power will see the light.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5916-41150]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[GAArcher]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:52:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

