Comments for Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog Just another WordPress weblog Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:37:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Introduction by Conrad Maher http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-494 Conrad Maher Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:59:16 +0000 http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1#comment-494 Just came across your website through my participation in the Energy Resources Group moderated by Tom Robertson. While still at the U of M I worked as a construction enginer for two summers on an experimental, boiling water reactor at Elk River, MN in the late 1950's. It was a success and later decommissioned. There I learned that nuclear reactors can be built to avoid the accidents that have occurred with an acceptable level of engineering and care. As you know by visiting France and seeing what they have done. BTW, one of my high school classmated moved to France and married after she completed here University training. She made a career of translating papers on the French Nuclear Industry and may still be active in that field. If you are interested, I can have her contact you and she is probably able to help in the search for specific information on that industry in France. My career took me to many places and four continents working in the oil industry. Along the way, I learned enough to know that Oil Shale, Tar Sands, gas from CBM, energy from sunlight (and from my farm days) energy from biofuels were never going to be substitute for Oil and Gas from conventional fields, coal and Nuclear sourced energy. Americans are so "dumbed down" and addicted to the crap that comes from talk shows and stations like Fox News that it is very hard to deal with the basics of the 'strong nuclear forces' that make up the nucleus of atoms as the most promising if not the only source of energy for the future of the world. In recent year I have done quite a lot of investigation on alternative sources and find that none of them possiblity of replacing coal, oil and gas. Even if we use some hydrogen as gas, we should produce it with electricity that come from nuclear generation. As and engineer/geologist/manager, I am convinced that we can deal with all of the technical problems of using nuclear plants to generate electricity. What is needed is to get more people in the US to accept this and head off some of the waste of resources that it taking place and will acclerate if we don't direct far more of our resources to building nuclear plants and research on new types of plants and storage methods for the by products. I look forward to following your blog and the site and even to meeting you one day. Sincerely, Conrad Maher Just came across your website through my participation in the Energy Resources Group moderated by Tom Robertson.

While still at the U of M I worked as a construction enginer for two summers on an experimental, boiling water reactor at Elk River, MN in the late 1950’s. It was a success and later decommissioned.

There I learned that nuclear reactors can be built to avoid the accidents that have occurred with an acceptable level of engineering and care. As you know by visiting France and seeing what they have done.

BTW, one of my high school classmated moved to France and married after she completed here University training. She made a career of translating papers on the French Nuclear Industry and may still be active in that field. If you are interested, I can have her contact you and she is probably able to help in the search for specific information on that industry in France.

My career took me to many places and four continents working in the oil industry. Along the way, I learned enough to know that Oil Shale, Tar Sands, gas from CBM, energy from sunlight (and from my farm days) energy from biofuels were never going to be substitute for Oil and Gas from conventional fields, coal and Nuclear sourced energy.

Americans are so “dumbed down” and addicted to the crap that comes from talk shows and stations like Fox News that it is very hard to deal with the basics of the ’strong nuclear forces’ that make up the nucleus of atoms as the most promising if not the only source of energy for the future of the world.

In recent year I have done quite a lot of investigation on alternative sources and find that none of them possiblity of replacing coal, oil and gas. Even if we use some hydrogen as gas, we should produce it with electricity that come from nuclear generation.

As and engineer/geologist/manager, I am convinced that we can deal with all of the technical problems of using nuclear plants to generate electricity.

What is needed is to get more people in the US to accept this and head off some of the waste of resources that it taking place and will acclerate if we don’t direct far more of our resources to building nuclear plants and research on new types of plants and storage methods for the by products.

I look forward to following your blog and the site and even to meeting you one day.

Sincerely,

Conrad Maher

]]> Comment on Is Anybody Paying Attention To This Windmill Stuff? by residential wind power http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=13&cpage=1#comment-467 residential wind power Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:05:17 +0000 http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=13#comment-467 Smart writing. Will for sure come back. I also have a residential wind power site at Smart writing. Will for sure come back. I also have a residential wind power site at

]]> Comment on Introduction by Industrial Pollution And Global Warming http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-445 Industrial Pollution And Global Warming Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:25:03 +0000 http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1#comment-445 Introduction? Seriously? I was searching Google for industrial pollution and global warming and found this... will have to think about it. Introduction? Seriously? I was searching Google for industrial pollution and global warming and found this… will have to think about it.

]]> Comment on Introduction by Lindsey Davis http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-379 Lindsey Davis Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:23:00 +0000 http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1#comment-379 I agree that there is some confusion surrounding nuclear or 'terestrial' energy and admit I am somewhat perplexed myself. The main concerns are the disposal of the waste products and keeping the reactors safe - how exactly is this achieved? And how do you propose we harness and use the waste products if, as you say, they are simply untapped energy sources? I agree that there is some confusion surrounding nuclear or ‘terestrial’ energy and admit I am somewhat perplexed myself. The main concerns are the disposal of the waste products and keeping the reactors safe - how exactly is this achieved? And how do you propose we harness and use the waste products if, as you say, they are simply untapped energy sources?

]]> Comment on Introduction by woody hochswender http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1&cpage=1#comment-357 woody hochswender Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:55:55 +0000 http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=1#comment-357 Are u the same William Tucker who I used to publish in the Comment section of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner years ago? I think so. As I recall, you wrote some of the first pieces on carbon-credit type trading (or pollution rights trading) back in the 1980s. I published them. Meanwhile, I am good friends in NW CT with Spencer Reiss, a writer for Wired, who holds similar views about nuclear power. Jane Fonda (Chine Syndrome) and Meryl Streep (Silkwood) ruined things for everyone. They're such good actresses (and we were all so stoned on conspiracy and evil government) that they infected the culture with an irrational fear of hard-to-understand science. best/wh Are u the same William Tucker who I used to publish in the Comment section of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner years ago? I think so. As I recall, you wrote some of the first pieces on carbon-credit type trading (or pollution rights trading) back in the 1980s. I published them. Meanwhile, I am good friends in NW CT with Spencer Reiss, a writer for Wired, who holds similar views about nuclear power.

Jane Fonda (Chine Syndrome) and Meryl Streep (Silkwood) ruined things for everyone. They’re such good actresses (and we were all so stoned on conspiracy and evil government) that they infected the culture with an irrational fear of hard-to-understand science.

best/wh

]]> Comment on Nuclear moving ahead everywhere - except in U.S. by djysrv http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=20&cpage=1#comment-5 djysrv Sun, 17 May 2009 16:09:30 +0000 http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/blog/?p=20#comment-5 Areva is not building a "fuel fabrication plant" in Idaho. It is building a $2B uranium enrichment plant which is an earlier stage in the nuclear fuel cycle. Fuel fabrication comes later which involves turning uranium fuel, in powdered form, enriched to 3-5% U235, into fuel pellets that are then loaded into fuel bundles. The resulting fuel bundles then are used to power civilian nuclear reactors. Areva has a fuel fabrication plant in Richland, WA, which is where the output of the Idaho plant will eventually wind up. Also, the Soviets have not put containment buildings around their RBMK plants, which are the same design as the Chernobyl plant. The RBMK's which provide 1,000 MW each have operated safely since the Chernobyl incident. You can see pictures of the 3-unit facility at Smolensk here http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/04/photo-tour-of-russian-reactor-at.html Areva is not building a “fuel fabrication plant” in Idaho. It is building a $2B uranium enrichment plant which is an earlier stage in the nuclear fuel cycle. Fuel fabrication comes later which involves turning uranium fuel, in powdered form, enriched to 3-5% U235, into fuel pellets that are then loaded into fuel bundles. The resulting fuel bundles then are used to power civilian nuclear reactors.

Areva has a fuel fabrication plant in Richland, WA, which is where the output of the Idaho plant will eventually wind up.

Also, the Soviets have not put containment buildings around their RBMK plants, which are the same design as the Chernobyl plant. The RBMK’s which provide 1,000 MW each have operated safely since the Chernobyl incident. You can see pictures of the 3-unit facility at Smolensk here
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/04/photo-tour-of-russian-reactor-at.html

]]>