[ RadSafe ] Sorry it was 60 minutes. What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?

Fri May 17 01:31:31 CDT 2013

Radsafers:

Sorry, it was CBS "60 minutes" from May 12.
.
You can see episode "Bill Gates 2.0" or just read in the below link or
script.

Reactor uses depleted uranium and refueling cycle 60 years instead of 20
years as I mentioned in my previous email.
Steve Jobs part obviously impressive too.
Of course, my apology to Melinda for calling Belinda.

To watch episode: click on "Bill Gates 2.0"

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146679n

Below is script.

To read script click below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57584009/bill-gates-2.0/?pageNum=3

Part of the script:

>>>>>

But Gates isn't just reading books for pleasure, he is determined to use
his knowledge to back groundbreaking innovations. Take this high-tech
zapper. It is a laser designed to shoot down malaria-infected mosquitoes in
mid-flight.

And Gates showed us one of his boldest, and he says most important,
ventures -- a new kind of nuclear reactor. It would burn depleted uranium,
making it cleaner, safer and cheaper than today's reactors.

Bill Gates: And your fuel will last for 60 years. So during that entire
time, you don't need to open it up, refuel it. You don't need to buy more
fuel. So there's a certain simplicity that comes with this design.

Charlie Rose: And when could it come on stream?

Bill Gates: Best case would be to have a prototype around 2022.

Bill Gates calls himself an "impatient optimist" - a description his wife
Melinda says was accurate even when they met over 20 years ago.

Charlie Rose: Melinda, what did you like about him?
>>>>>>

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, David Lee <davidleesafe at gmail.com> wrote:

Bill,
A very interesting thing with the trust. Accidents and too many skeletons
in the closets do not help, for sure.
The answer is d) none of the above. Technological progress. 60 years of the
old nuclear steam machines with Carnot cycle are not an answer.
Any one have seen Bill and Belinda Gates with Charlie Rose, I think, it was
on PBS or Bloomberg business news, a couple of days ago?
Quite interesting, Bill was showing a some kind of a new nuclear reactor
concept sketch, it looked sort of a rectangular form with 20 years fuel
cycle (between refuelings). Fuel was burning, beginning from the left side
towards the other. I cut the end of the program so did not really get the
whole idea...The good news, now we know Bill is with us ;-) I would assume
where Bill goes Warren would follow. Both these gentlemen and lady are in
the business of saving children and healing sick.
So there are HUGE investments, the next we need new Teslas and Edisons.
Defending old tea pots, will not change things for better, it is like
fixing old Festiva, it is always sick but never dies.

> Thomas,
>
> You are absolutely, right. Germany and the rest of the Europe are addicted
> to getting cheap gas from Russia (GASPROM is a 100 ton gorilla and it is
> in the  gasoline business too, I think Gasprom or Rosneft have muscled
> out BP out of Far East/Pacific oil exploration project). Gasprom have a
> very old and harmonious relationship with Germany since 1950's, 60's? In
> 70's and 80's Germans had the most advance nuclear reactors design program
> and all that down the drain, cheap natural gas, I do not believe it were
> Greens, it looked like Greens (Grune) but with out cheap gas it was
> impossible. In the visible spectrum it looked of course like Greens did it.
> But we all know there is wider invisible part of the spectrum, cheap gas
> was in that part of the spectrum. And it is okay too. Gas industry is not
> an enemy.
> Burning hydrocarbons like 5-10,000 years ago like a cave man/woman did it.
> This stuff can be used to make plastics, etc., almost everything from
> carbofiber (this one may be from graphite) Dreamliner Boeing 787 to
> Corvette if you prefer. And we just burn it to get the heat? How different,
> it is from the cave man.
> Uranium and Thorium on the other hand have no ANY other use than producing
> energy (sorry, fiesta ware lovers).
> I do not want to preach gospel to the quire here. If everything has its
> purpose, Uranium and Thorium have theirs too.
> This is kind of spiel, I give to people who is not familiar with nuclear
> technology and 0.99% +/- 0.01% of them get it and become visibly nuclear
> enthusiastic..
>
> Dave.
>
> you wrote:
>
> <Germany is planning a phase-out by 2022, but only three units are
> scheduled for closure prior to 2021. Japan is already considering reopening
> at least some currently shut down plants. Of course all of these nations
> are looking for cheap gas >
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM, THOMAS POTTER <pottert at erols.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am also a supporter of nuclear power and am mostly retired after a long
>> health physics career. I share Bill Lipton's frustrations about many of the
>> posts on RADSAFE. However, I do not agree with Bill's sense that the only (
>> or even the most important) question the public cares about is, "Can the
>> nuclear industry be trusted to manage the technology?"
>>
>> The collapse of the rapid expansion phase of the nuclear power industry
>> development predated both Chernobyl and TMI and had everything to do with
>> economic fallout from the Arab oil embargo and nothing to do with loss of
>> trust. Resulting reduced power demand, high inflation, and high interest
>> rates drove new  nuclear power out of the market.
>>
>> Uncertainty about need for power was also important in this collapse. A
>> significant part of  nuclear's economic problem, shared with renewables, is
>> that a large fraction of the ultimate cost of its production of electrical
>> power comes up front when the plant is built. A significant part of fossil
>> fuel plants' ultimate cost of production is deferred as fuel costs, which
>> can be avoided later in the event of investment misjudgment.
>>
>> Fukushima is not the most imp ortant recent development  influencing the
>> future of nuclear power. Cheap natural gas is. Cheap n atural gas is
>> rapidly replacing even coal for electric power production, while
>> simultaneously reducing carbon emissions.  In the continuing absence of a
>> substantial price for carbon emission, it is virtually certain to be the
>> option of choice over new nuclear or renewables for electric power
>> production.
>>
>> Fukushima was certainly a substantial blow to public trust. We may see
>> how important public trust  is to nuclear power in the near term by
>> watching what happens to currently operating plants. Sweden is not even
>> pretending a new phase-out, probably chastened  after its earlier phase-out
>> resulted in the closure of only a single unit. Germany is planning a
>> phase-out by 2022, but only three units are scheduled for closure prior to
>> 2021. Japan is already considering reopening at least some currently shut
>> down plants.  Of course all of these nations are looking for cheap gas .
>>
>> The focus on trust is misplaced. If it was all about trust, how does BP
>> survive ?   It has little to do with  trust. It's all about need.
>>
>> Thomas E. Potter
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:42:27 -0400
>> From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?
>> To: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CAJODVEFeijbmM6WFmu5SerwHraBVW3idtgsNQQeK9oqbM3sNhg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> As a supporter of nuclear power, who retired after working 26 years at a
>> nuclear power plant, it is frustrating to read the many postings and
>> arguments regarding LNT, hormesis, mutated tomatoes at Fukushima, the
>> dangers of coal,  etc.  You don't get it!
>>
>> The future of nuclear power will NOT be decided by whether low level
>> radiation exposure is good or bad, whether the media is biased, whether
>> our
>> government is controlled by antinukes, or whether other ways of producing
>> electricity are just as hazardous.
>>
>> There is only one question that the public cares about:  Can the nuclear
>> industry be trusted to manage the technology?
>>
>> I dare anyone to answer, "Yes," to that.
>>
>> Going forward, discussions should focus on what we can do to change this
>> situation.  The burden of proof is on us.
>>
>> Bill Lipton
>> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>
>