Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Risk-free society; debunking nuclear scares; David Lebl

Those of you who know me understand that I am not the passive type and not the kind that can accept the mythology that has arisen from the "green" movement. You also may know that my conclusion after about a decade and a half of research and analysis is that the power of those arguments really stems from the fact that fighting nuclear power is quite beneficial to some very powerful interests - namely those people that have an interest in continued market dominance by fossil fuel and continued subsidies for those "acceptable" alternatives that cannot capture any fossil market share on their own technical merits.

Rod Adams

On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Jerry Cuttler wrote:

Jaro,

Thanks for this youtube link. I listened to the whole presentation (1 hour, plus) and enjoyed hearing the many technical concepts that David discussed. He has researched and digested a considerable amount of impressive technology on molten salt reactors.

It seems to be very difficult to obtain adequate funding to develop innovative nuclear reactor designs in Canada (or in the US) in recent decades. The R&D process was very focused at ORNL and at the other national labs in the mid-1900s. And there were many gifted nuclear scientists and engineers, who could concentrate on overcoming technical challenges and solving real problems.

Because of the anti-nuclear myths that have disseminated for decades about potential hazards, politicians are reluctant to talk about nuclear energy. They fear protests from the anti-nuke and green activists. Green is socially acceptable. Nuclear energy is not considered to be green because of many myths, which we are not refuting. There was a time when scientists really practised the scientific method and tested hypotheses comprehensively before accepting them as valid. They used facts to debunk myths and junk-science vigorously.

There are many folks working in nuclear energy today, but they seem to be relatively silent in the debates. Much expensive complexity has been introduced into reactor design and operation because of exaggerated fears that have been created about potential risks, reducing the competitive advantage of nuclear energy.

One of the important advantages of CANDU reactors was the relative ease of introducing different fuel cycles, but there seems to be difficulty in implementing the use of the low void reactivity fuel (LVRF) bundle, which will increase safety margin. This is a very simple enhancement. And there seems to be concern about whether the ACR will work as designed. If potential customers insist on buying only a totally proven design, then how can we ever expect to build advanced reactors, like the ones discussed in this lecture?

Jerry

T.H. Huxley: "The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

NASA Astronaut Buzz Aldrin: "History will remember the inhabitants of this century (20th) as the people who went from the Kitty Hawk to the moon in 66 years, only to languish for the next 30 years in low Earth orbit. At the core of the risk-free society is a self-indulgent failure of nerve."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaro" <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca>
To: "multiple cdn" <cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:00 PM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] David Leblanc on Liquid Fluoride Reactors
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So
>
> Google Tech Talk by David Leblanc:
>
> Liquid Fluoride Reactors: A New Beginning for an Old Idea
>
> .....more at http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/index.php
>

Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Risk-free society; debunking nuclear scares; David Leblanc on Liquid Fluoride Reactors