Mr Lang,

This item came up, on lithium batteries and grounding of aircraft fleets, and naturally I thought of you.

You seem to have gone quiet. I fully expected to give you the last word. Have you shifted your focus to another thread, perhaps one on the green conspiracy to destroy the air travel industry?

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_02_04_Will_Boeings_787_Battery_Issues_Ground_Electric_Vehicles

Oh. And here's another interesting set of readings. Seems not all the Fukushima alarmists were tree-huggers. Some of them even run a nuclear navy:

PROMETHEUS TRAP (1): U.S. frustrated with Japan's initial response to Fukushima
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301280006

PROMETHEUS TRAP (2): U.S. officials feared for loved ones still in Japan
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301300006

PROMETHEUS TRAP (3): Japanese ambassador felt something not right before State Department meeting
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302010004

PROMETHEUS TRAP (4): U.S. official sought 'heroic sacrifice' from Japan
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201302040001

"Editor's note: This is the fourth part of a series that has run in the past under the overall title of The Prometheus Trap. This series deals with the differences between Japan and the United States in dealing with the Fukushima nuclear accident of 2011 following the Great East Japan Earthquake. The series will appear on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays."

Peter, Regarding nuclear waste problems, a few years ago a friend, who
was responsible at the highest levels for Menai & worked in nuclear
power in the UK, said that with reprocessing waste could be used over
and over and the result would be very low level radiation.
He said it would be more costly but would still be positive money wise
but would reduce the cost of waste storage to a large extent.

I wonder if this is still the case ?

I remember reading something about having a series of nuclear stations
each operating with lower radio active fuel and as each depletes the
fuel is moved to the next station in line.

Does that seem feasible ?

Sir Vivor,

I gave up answering any of your comments. They demonstrate you are incapable of thinking logically or rationally. Until you can understand and are prepared to acknowledge the most basic and fundamental facts, there is no point in getting sidetracked into discussing the irrelevancies you keep bringing up. But I realise you can't and wont understand that. That is what being a zealot means. the key facts you need to recognise and acknowledge are:
1. Nuclear is about the safest way to generate the electricity the world needs. Replacing coal with nulcear now would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year. Only an ignoramus or a zealot would oppose that?
2. It is the least cost way to reduce global GHG emissions
3. There is a virtually unlimited supply of nuclear fuel to provide the Worlds energy needs for hundreds of years or more with far higher population using far more energy than we do now
4. It provides energy security for everyone and reduces the amount of coal, and gas that needs to be transported for electricity generation by a factor of 20,000 to 2 million, that is 20,000 ship loads of coal passing through the Great barrier Reef, replaced by one ship passing out of Darwin.
Until you can get your head around these basic facts, why would I bother wasting time replying to your comments?

Bazz,
Can I provide you with a couple of links to answer your question:
1. "A lifetime of energy in the palm of your hand": http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/22/ifr-fad-4/

2. "The energy demand equation to 2050": http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/11/tcase3/

3. "Gen II and Gen IV nuclear power synergy - why we need both" http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/10/ifr-fad-5/

4. George Monbiott: "The UK's stockpile of nuclear waste could be used to generate enough low-carbon energy to run this country for 500 years." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/02/nuclear-waste

Sir Vivor,

I'd suggest you open your mind and trying doing some research to challenge your beliefs.

Mr Lang,
What may appear irrational to one depends a lot on differences in opinions and unshared assumptions .

Clearly, my posts haven't altered your opinion. That doesn't make my opinions irrational, nor does it make me a zealot. Pasting me with labels will not save the earth, if that is your intention.

Your point 1 is your opinion, and has been argued by cleverer folks that you or I or Mr K, for 40 years or more.

Point 2 is your opinion, removed from fact as is any economist's opinion about "least cost" means of reducing global CO2 emissions.

Point 3 addresses the world's energy needs, but nuclear electricity addresses only the some of the world's electricity needs.

Point 4 states that "It provides energy security for everyone". And then goes off at a tangent about coal exports through the Great Barrier Reef. You have conflated an advertising quip with current environmental issue, one that will not be addressed by the sudden expansion of nuclear electricity generation.

The problems of nuclear waste disposal, the link between nuclear electricity and nuclear proliferation, and acceptable risk and insurability of nuclear electricity generation remain to be resolved.

What a shame you appear unable see advantages of solar energy applications that provide decentralised low-grade heat as well as electricity; to backing increased energy efficiency; to backing a range of decentralised and relatively low-tech interventions which are in fact applicable and far less fraught with unforseeable and potentially catastrophic consequences, especially in the developing world. Especially as you appear to have an interest in "energy security for everyone".

It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Dr Amory Lovins has been leaving a track record of solid results for over 30 years. I venture to say that he has already done far more for global energy security than Mr Kemeny can hope to achieve.

I encourage you to check out the Rocky Mountain Institute website ( www.rmi.org ) Or maybe you'd rather paste Mr Lovins with a label or two, irrationally ignoring the solutions RMI has developed and demonstrated. Your choice.

Sir Vivor,

All four points are facts. You haven't refuted any. I've provided the evidence.

They don't support your ideological beliefs. They don't support your opinions.

Try to refute the points or don't waste time expressing your unsubstantiated and baseless opinions.

Mr Lang,

I am surprised that an erudite man such as yourself would appear unable distinguish between fact and opinion.

As a starting place to address this possible shortcoming, I recommend Wictionary.

Enjoy your day.