this thread is not responding to my full comment. I’ll desist.

John McCormick

Cyril,

that was my message to Joe: increase the intellectural discussion on Gen IV. Joe places more hope in wind/solar and their

that was my message to Joe: increase the intellectural discussion on Gen IV. Joe places more hope in wind/solar and their

John McCormick”

And I’m sure you think that snide remarks increase the intellectual quality of the debate eh?

The biggest challenge for the nuclear construction companies now is to prove they can build nuclear plants within budget.

John McCormick

I agree with the message of this website, that nuclear is to expensive, but we still have to give it a fair vetting.

Another point is that maybe cents/KWh is not a good measure of comparing costs of low and non carbon fuel electrical power sources. Some have commented that we should be using gallons per 100 miles (or liters per 100 Kilometers) for motor vehicles because of the inability of comparing different vehicles using MPG. Example, moving from 10 mpg to 20 mpg saves more energy than moving from 25 mpg to 50 mpg. The same might be happening with cents/KWh. It might be better to use total yearly KWh per billion invested to comparing new generating sources.

Many dollars have been spent to subsidize campaigns to ensure public paranoia against nuclear anything. Ralph Nader proclaimed his intent during the 1970’s to choke nulcear power on its waste.

I was talking about Gen IV and gearing up for Gen V. Federal funding will be the biggest obstacle to continuing the international nuclear partnership.

And, let me borrow the views of Jim Hansen when he reminded us of the Clinton Admin’s shucking and jiving on nuclear programs and budget requests:

[ IFR design can be practically failsafe, relying on physical properties of reactor components to shut down in even the most adverse situations, thus avoiding coolant problems of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the earthquake problem. The terrorist threat can be minimized by building the reactor below grade and covering it with reinforced concrete and earth.

Wait a minute! If it’s that good, why aren’t we doing it? Well, according to Blees, it’s because, in 1994, just when we were ready to build a demonstration plant, the Clinton Administration cancelled the IFR program. Blees offers a partial explanation, noting that Clinton had used the phrase “You’re pro-nuclear!” to demonize rivals during his campaign, suggesting that Clinton had a debt to the anti-nuclear people. Hmm. The matter warrants further investigation and discussion. It’s not as if we didn’t know about global warming in 1994.]

for emphasis:

“Clinton had used the phrase “You’re pro-nuclear!” to demonize rivals during his campaign, suggesting that Clinton had a debt to the anti-nuclear people. Hmm. The matter warrants further investigation and discussion. It’s not as if we didn’t know about global warming in 1994.”

And, Joe, you said:

[Your product is too damn expensive to convince even Warren Buffet it is worth the risk

My product is still in the R&D stage. and, if Arjun etal, have their way, it will be tossed into the dumpster.

John McCormick

[JR: During five years at the Department of Energy and many years since, I heard from countless people with the solution to our energy problems who had been thwarted by government or the national labs or the auto industry or the oil companies in developing their miracle cure. It was always the same conspiracy over and over again. Call me when you're technology is commercial -- if you can't get it commercialized, maybe it's not the as great as you think.]

On the face of it the UK is doing quite well, in that’s its emissions are not rising, but a study last week at some uni pointed out that we are fooling ourselves by not including China/India manufacturing emissions. Also, we don’t include aviation, which is growing rapidly.

I am not sure that any of the developed nations have got anything to shout about. We are a million miles away from the type of response that Hansen says is needed.