Comments on: Safe Portable Nuclear – Almost

By: Nuclear power options snippets « Balneus

Nuclear power options snippets « Balneus — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:36:47 +0000

[...] "Safe portable nuclear – almost" (2009-07-18 by Jennifer Marohasy) – yeah, normally someone who sets my teeth on edge, but this particular post has a point that needs to be considered. [...]

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:50:34 +0000

Just ran across another interesting design for hands off reactors:

http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/07/nuclear-reactor-that-nevers-needs-to-be.html

By: spangled drongo

spangled drongo — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:20:51 +0000

More on the SSTAR here. Sod could have one under his house.

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:59:29 +0000

Cohenite,

“the yanks are nuts if they don’t go atomic as this correct mix of energy shows;”

Ayyup!!

By: hunter

hunter — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:01:58 +0000

The madness of the greens, from their dogged opposition to anything that actually works, to their disgusting hubris in pretending that we can manage climate, to their pseudo-religious righteousness, will go down in history as one of the demonstrations of the worst people can do.

By: PeterB

PeterB — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:55:57 +0000

“Thanks for the link Luke, haven’t seen The Spanish Inquisition in many years.”

Oops, posted this on the wrong thread…

By: Malcolm Hill

Malcolm Hill — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:26:58 +0000

Consider this:

1. Under the Kyoto protocol Nulcear Energy cannot be considered because the greenoids that controlled the show, would not allow it.

2. Also under the Kyoto Protocol Article 3.3, Australias sequestration of pre 1990 plantations and and native forests, was not allowed.

3. Eucalyptus forests of SE Australia could remove 136 MtCo2 e for the next 100 years, but these are also not allowed.

4. Garnaut p164, shows that Australia has the highest per capita area of forested and wooded area land of any one. It is twenty times larger than the OECD average.This is not allowed to be used to offset the highest per capita co2 production figures for Australia, that the greenoids and IPCC nutters are so fond of using.

5. Kyoto and the IPCC shonks love to quote the per capita figures, but dont even relate this to the area of the nations states. If they did the Europeans look to be the worst by miles.

There is a smell to this, and three things are obvious:

The Europeans, as is evident from this ridiculous Allianz Insurance and WWF document, make up the rules to suit themselves, and to peddle this b/s.

John Howard was quite right in not signing the stupid protocol.

Rudd would not do the right thing by this country if his ambition to score a job in the UN was a risk, and I dont believe he would stand up to the beuraucrats and idiots who allowed us to be put in such a poor position as above despite what Senator Hill achieved.

By: louis Hissink

louis Hissink — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:01:41 +0000

The odd thing about this nuclear power issue is that France, as social democratic as one could be, has over 80% of it’s electrical energy supplied by nuclear reactors. So why is it ok for the French, but not for us?

By: cohenite

cohenite — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:56:21 +0000

I’ve been a fan of nuclear ever since I saw Mickey Rooney in “The Atomic Kid” and of course Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, so I see only good coming from nuclear; the yanks are nuts if they don’t go atomic as this correct mix of energy shows;

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation.ppt#283,28,Slide28

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:54:41 +0000

Marcus,,

Indeed – Tesla and JP Morgan – and the WWF – The Prince Philip is behind that organisation, so it seems.