Lots of Good Stuff Happening in Nuclear
Nuclear energy enthusiasts should be happy to see so much research and development going into this space. There are several different directions nuclear seems to be headed, one of which is smaller, modular reactors that can be deployed to provide power to small regions, virtually eliminating line loss, which is typically 5 – 7%. The U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E (Advanced Research Project Administration – Energy) has ponied up $20 for development of a solution in this space that will deploy a supercritical working fluid, e.g., CO2, meaning that it doesn’t change phase and thus doesn’t require boilers and condensers.
As I noted dozens of times, it’s sad that so many environmentalists don’t really “get” nuclear. The simple facts are that nuclear is the safest form of energy per kWh known to man, it’s almost zero-carbon, and it’s a one-for-one trade-off with coal (another form of baseload power). One this this civilization doesn’t have is time to waste in bringing down its carbon footprint.
Craig it is not important for everyone to like or fall into line with any given view or idea about any topic including energy technologies.
I am an enviromentalist of long standing and a supporter of nuclear energy generation technologies development also of very long standing. My wife is also an environmentalist and not a supporter of nuclear energy generation.
We both share a view though that irrespective of our individual views on this subject, what is important is that the appropriate viewpoint for global energy decision and policy makers to agree to, is the one that will provide for a massive increase in the availabilty to all people of the world and particularly those in underveloped nations, of clean, safe, abundant, low cost, and reliable power 24/7 to power homes, businesses, factories, infrastructure development industries, and all of those new age energy intensive technology industries that are critically needed across the world; whilst at the same time eliminating global GHG to insignificant levels.
Its not about your view, its not about my view, its not about MarcoPolo’s view; its about a global focus on the ‘appropriate views’ that satisfy the common need of the global energy imperative for the advancement of all people – forever.
I detect a (well wordsmithed) turnaround at last in your views Craig about global enduring energy technologies taking everyone globally forward and eliminating GHG at the same time and this is commendable.
You have never been a real fan of the few genuine energy technology agnostics that have put forth conficting views to your’s over the years, preferring to line up with the narrow minded idealogues (often echoing their own self centered commercial interests also); but you may finally be tiring of this ‘road to nowhere’ approach and looking to refresh 2greenenergy and get back on track.
I look forward to seeing where you now take 2greenenergy
Lawrence Coomber
@ Craig who reported:
“The short answer is that McKibben himself is not anti-nuke; in fact he believes that it may be vital in lowering carbon emissions in time to avoid catastrophic climate change, but that he doesn’t make this public on the basis that it would “split the movement in half.”
Q. What “movement” is McKibben referring to?: and on the critical subject of global GHG and future global energy generation imperatives, what are the constituent attributes that give the “movement” any credabilty, relevance or decision making capabilities to define and implement through legislation global nations energy policies?
I have never heard of the “movement” in my experience around the energy technology world!
Is this a fanciful concoction by Bill perhaps, or maybe a fond recollection of another “movement” around Haight St Ashbury (San Francisco) in 1967?
Lawrence Coomber