Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jamesqf
If, however, you look at a less biased report - that is...
|
You mean this Wikipedia article?
Quote:
|
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (November 2013)
|
I'm in no position to parse the Edit history, but there is a flag up. Funny how the whales have no interest in pursuing it in the courts.
Don't get me wrong, I have no bias against thorium reactors. But quoting
Karl Grossman: There is no “peaceful nuclear power.”
Quote:
As physicist Amory Lovins and attorney L. Hunter Lovins wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: “All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions…Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball.”
“A large power reactor,” they noted, “annually produces…hundreds of kilograms of plutonium.” Civilian nuclear power technology, they concluded, provides the way to make nuclear weapons, furnishing the material and the trained personnel.
Indeed, that’s how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a nuclear reactor to be used for “peaceful purposes” and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons.
|
If you ponder the problem on it's obverse face you just decrease demand (to accommodate the EV surge). Like with this:
Glass paint could keep metal roofs and other structures cool even on sunny days. They aren't even starting field trials for 2 years so obviously Big Energy has it's hand in.