tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post4156028304502164024..comments2023-09-28T21:40:05.328+10:00Comments on Dr Clam's accidental blog: The Madness of King JamesMarco Parigihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-52795859918070596652006-12-21T12:13:00.000+11:002006-12-21T12:13:00.000+11:00Intellectual laziness wins through-this guy seems ...Intellectual laziness wins through-<a href="http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html">this guy</a> seems to be credible. He cites Scientific American and appears on a site that is pro-everything-but-fossil fuels, not just pro-nuclear. He calculates that with breeder reactors nuclear power is nigh inexhaustible.<br /><br />And yes, I am on holiday. Yay!Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-65256684302696246882006-12-21T12:04:00.000+11:002006-12-21T12:04:00.000+11:00Hmm, I can't remember what it says in Lomborg's bo...Hmm, I can't remember what it says in Lomborg's book, and I think it would be intellectually lazy for me just to Google 'uranium reserves'. <br /><br />My vague feeling is that using breeder reactors to make plutonium stretches out our nuclear energy capacity a great deal, and that there are likely to be very very large reserves of uranium ore that are not economic to mine with current technologies but are likely to become so in the future.Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-58303525491156300022006-12-21T11:48:00.000+11:002006-12-21T11:48:00.000+11:00I think I wrote about this a while back. Nuclear e...I think I wrote about this a while back. Nuclear energy plays into Australias hands. Getting the greenies onside is an added bonus. Realistically, nuclear power will mainly expand where it is already accepted. Australia should become the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy, and we will use our power and leverage for "good" rather than evil. I suggest that practical delays will stretch out reserves to 200 years.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-48408530474753676552006-12-19T16:42:00.000+11:002006-12-19T16:42:00.000+11:00I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere t...I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that the reserves of radioisotopes for nuclear power will run out in some ludicrously short time (like 100 years) if we all switched to nuclear power. Since I'm too lazy to google this I can't confirm it, but should it be true...why are we all even bothering to discuss a stopgap solution?<br /><br />JennyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-69366717365412697602006-12-19T12:05:00.000+11:002006-12-19T12:05:00.000+11:00Clam - yes. I have a very strong feeling that the ...Clam - yes. I have a very strong feeling that the only reason Howard's getting on the global warming bandwagon at all is that it softens up the Panicky Voter (upon which he so clearly depends) for expansion into the "safe" "clean" nuclear power industry.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05203948349102824828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-59458593965540071812006-12-19T09:53:00.000+11:002006-12-19T09:53:00.000+11:00"sequestering" - nice word Marco."sequestering" - nice word Marco.winstoninaboxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639817202208983827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-16024686552066490842006-12-19T08:03:00.000+11:002006-12-19T08:03:00.000+11:00Hmm, I guess I agree with you guys.
I think there...Hmm, I guess I agree with you guys. <br />I think there is always a danger in basing correct conclusions on false premises, and the danger for unreformed hippie commie pinkos- and the world in general- is people adopting the same premises and coming to different conclusions.<br />For example, if global warming is used as an excuse to build lots more nuclear power plants, dam lots more rivers, and protect inefficient European industries, it might be kind of bad.Dr Clamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14985493422534275997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-23879092412292913002006-12-18T14:11:00.000+11:002006-12-18T14:11:00.000+11:00Of course in my mind there are also compelling rea...Of course in my mind there are also compelling reasons for developed countries to cut back energy usage. Exporting our emmissions to developing countries will be very beneficial to those countries. Given the sorry state of the Doha round, global trade of carbon might reawaken thoughts of trading hmmm say food? It will also make us feel a lot better about ourselves. We can then pass blame for exponentially increasing emmissions on our poorer brethren, and smirk when disasters strike them harder anyway.Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-42369792975064164542006-12-18T12:05:00.000+11:002006-12-18T12:05:00.000+11:00Interesting you should mention toxic pollutants. I...Interesting you should mention toxic pollutants. I incorrectly came to the conclusion that the latest coal fired power plants in Australia were sequestering their CO2 emmissions. "Full sequestration" that they talked about on the news actually meant all the other pollutant emmisions, including global cooling (acid rain causing) sulphur ones. The CO2 is still being emmitted. Thus the "clean coal" technologies of the last few decades is actually causing more heating than the "dirty coal" ones. I think we should export our dirty coal technologies to developing countries so that they can cool the globe for us (and have some acid rain too, I mean developed countries had to go through it so it is only fair :))Marco Parigihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00702055111711651319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701411.post-36373971334433605112006-12-18T08:19:00.000+11:002006-12-18T08:19:00.000+11:00This all sounds reasonable, though I will have to ...This all sounds reasonable, though I will have to take your word for the maths. I like your addendum on the Devil's Weather - gah! He's so tricksy, ain't he?<br /><br />One not-exactly-counter-point: there are to my mind compelling reasons other than atmospheric CO2 to examine energy sources other than fossils fuels - toxic pollutants and by-products and such.<br /><br />It's the unreformed hippie commie pinko in me, to be sure, but I would add to that the long-term benefits of a shift in human perception away from the prevailing notion that rapacious consumption is somehow sustainable. If it takes global panic about polar icecaps melting to get people to stop buying SUVs and to fix that tap that's been dripping, so be it.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05203948349102824828noreply@blogger.com