tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70027882012-04-12T17:49:35.679-04:00Energy - how should we collect it, use it, and live with the results? And there is a Canadian way of thinking about this topic that is unique and matters. Intelligent life can be energetic if the boundaries are understood. This site analyzes the limits and recommends the levels.Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-68236063400144373972009-03-09T11:09:00.008-04:002009-03-12T23:18:13.591-04:00

Energy flows. It moves from one region to another. It bumps into constraints as it flows, and causes these constraints to change: perhaps to heat up, or perhaps to move. The specific effect on the constraint depends on how the energy flow interacts with it. The key point here is that these interactions are repeatable - they happen in the same way every time. This means that people can study the

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-20262583849764994302008-07-03T23:04:00.008-04:002008-07-13T11:33:00.610-04:00

Here are some interesting Canadian initiatives:Energy ProbeandThe Natural Resources Stewardship ProjectYou can supplement these Canadian perspectives with ideas from:Cool It!andThe Bottomless WellJudging from the above, Canadians should be making hard-headed, wealth increasing energy decisions very different from those being proposed by our political leaders.Energy Probe started all this for me.

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-90726425766669849212008-01-23T21:20:00.000-05:002008-01-23T21:49:53.664-05:00

Participating in the nuclear renaissance involves a lot more than building and operating fission based electricity generators. Many international collaborative projects are taking place, all aimed at improving nuclear technology. Canada has a leadership role in a number of these initiatives, and provides key research in other areas. The following list summarizes what I have been able to find

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-40561667832632568602007-12-16T21:36:00.000-05:002007-12-17T01:38:49.184-05:00

IBM has set up an advisory council for nuclear power - what does this mean?The Industry Talk section of the World Nuclear News web site reported that such a council held its first meeting in 2007 December. The results of this meeting are summarized here: Key 2008 Issues for Nuclear Power.The key concern is the aging of the nuclear industry work force, combined with the internet raised new

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-82946766816997633452007-12-03T12:37:00.000-05:002007-12-04T00:05:09.031-05:00

Canada is joining the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" (GNEP):Canada to join Global Nuclear Energy PartnershipOne of the GNEP partners actually noticed this momentous decision and gave it a favourable nod: DOE Statement on Canada Joining the Global Nuclear Energy PartnershipGNEP originally included: China, France, Japan, Russia, and the United States.Eleven more countries signed up at the

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-44466886661003506062007-11-12T15:26:00.000-05:002007-12-03T23:48:07.002-05:00

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) announced on 2007 Oct 31 that it wants comments about the Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP) recently released by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA).The OEB has to review the IPSP to make sure that it will accomplish what the Ontario Minister of Energy asked for, at a reasonable cost.How does one conduct such a review? Well, you make a list of the specific items

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-70311217271116822852007-11-11T20:30:00.000-05:002007-11-12T15:44:54.067-05:00

The InterAcademy Council published:Lighting the way: Toward a sustainable energy futureThis document was written by people who have well established positions as administrators, academics, and researchers in scientific fields such as physics, chemistry, system analysis, and biology. I dug into it hoping to find the hard headed, skeptical logic of a physics text book. That didn't happen. I

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-82585659087469422552007-05-25T23:50:00.000-04:002007-06-24T22:15:54.143-04:00

The UK government has asked for comments about nuclear power. The consultation web site is:http://nuclearpower2007.direct.gov.uk/The UK government nuclear power policy is summarized here:The Future of Nuclear Power: Consultation DocumentThe UK government wants comments that add to the information in the Consultation Document. The document is organized around eighteen questions, with the

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-42666182362136012792007-05-25T23:48:00.001-04:002007-10-05T23:41:35.938-04:00

To what extent do you believe that tackling climate change and ensuring the security of energy supplies are critical challenges for the UK that require significant action in the near term and a sustained strategy between now and 2050?The UK must ensure that its population has enough energy for a good standard of living. Given the changes that are coming this means that much more energy will be

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-48349418455928994642007-05-25T23:46:00.000-04:002007-10-05T23:55:58.155-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on carbon emissions from new nuclear power stations? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. The UK government states that nuclear power carbon emissions are about the same as wind generated electricity. This estimate is much too pessimistic for nuclear power.

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-83790365881403573592007-05-25T23:45:00.000-04:002007-06-03T22:18:01.914-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the security of supply impact of new nuclear power stations? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. Diversity does not improve energy stability if inferior technologies constitute the diversity. Each candidate technology for a diversified energy mix must

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-35116479594982921262007-05-25T23:44:00.000-04:002007-10-06T00:15:52.224-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the economics of new nuclear power stations? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?The economic value of a new nuclear power station is determined by non-technical factors. If frivolous legal challenges are allowed to delay construction then new power stations will

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-84012429329661985602007-05-25T23:43:00.000-04:002007-06-03T22:43:35.588-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the value of having nuclear power as an option? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. The future need for energy and electricity is easy to predict - a lot more will be needed. The UK government claims that this is difficult to foresee. I think it is

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-89128966864077466692007-05-25T23:42:00.000-04:002007-07-31T19:31:52.558-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the safety, security, health and non-proliferation issues? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. The UK government has not considered radiation hormesis in its assessment of the risks of radiation exposure. Increasing low dose radiation exposure improves

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-41685853390407062742007-05-25T23:40:00.000-04:002007-07-04T13:44:13.198-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the transport of nuclear materials? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. The UK government's approach is based on theories of radiation exposure that have been experimentally shown to be wrong. Low dose exposure is not harmful. So the risks are not "

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-51163114073760303722007-05-25T23:39:00.000-04:002007-06-10T23:16:25.067-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on waste and decommissioning ? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Vigorously disagree. First, anyone who describes spent fuel from thermal reactors as "waste" just does not understand nuclear power. The term "waste" has been pushed forward by nuclear opposition

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-71617754166024118922007-05-25T23:36:00.000-04:002007-06-10T14:51:22.221-04:00

What are the implications for the management of existing nuclear waste of taking a decision to allow energy companies to build new nuclear power stations?Some of the new reactors must be fast reactors that will burn the spent fuel accumulated to date from thermal reactors. That is the most advantageous means for exploiting this spent fuel treasure. Today's spent fuel must not be buried; it must

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-26993862798558951202007-05-25T23:33:00.001-04:002007-10-06T00:42:31.939-04:00

What do you think are the ethical considerations related to a decision to allow new nuclear power stations to be built? And how should these be balanced against the need to address climate change?The ethical considerations are overwhelming - similar to throwing a rope to a drowning person. Energy is needed to make human life less destructive. The burning of coal, wood, and dung has to stop.

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-39393138119581549762007-05-25T23:32:00.001-04:002007-10-06T00:52:27.916-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on environmental issues? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. The Government has wrongly assessed the impact of nuclear power stations. New stations can be built underground, leaving the surface intact, undisturbed. Moreover, this can be done in the middle

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-6417672895345509852007-05-25T23:31:00.001-04:002007-06-24T22:13:57.629-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the supply of nuclear fuel? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. The UK government has not adequately considered several factors that significantly increase the availability of fission fuel. First, thorium can be used to produce heat from fission.

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-12353004687327647072007-05-25T23:30:00.000-04:002007-06-10T23:10:27.796-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on the supply chain and skills capacity? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Agree. However, the UK government appears to be analyzing the situation with the assumption that today's technology will be used exclusively for new nuclear plants. This pedestrian

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-24610606248897219892007-05-25T23:29:00.000-04:002007-08-08T23:49:35.464-04:00

Do you agree or disagree with the Government's views on reprocessing? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations that you believe are missing? If so, what are they?Disagree. Reprocessing to cycle plutonium back into thermal reactors is not practical. It does not close the fuel cycle, and increases resource utilization by no more than 20%, while making the spent fuel harder to

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-42635965822640019542007-05-25T23:28:00.001-04:002007-10-06T01:09:14.061-04:00

Are there any other issues or information that you believe need to be considered before taking a decision on giving energy companies the option of investing in nuclear power stations? And why?Yes. The positive benefits of rational and scientific thinking need to be defended. Many groups are putting forward poorly thought out ideas with the intention of misleading large numbers of people, and

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-36588446212006773192007-05-25T23:23:00.000-04:002007-06-28T23:49:48.088-04:00

In the context of tackling climate change and ensuring energy security, do you agree or disagree that it would be in the public interest to give energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations?Clearly, the UK government has to have new nuclear power stations built. Not doing so would be suicidal and irrational. It is obvious that the public benefits from these

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7002788.post-39069442434684667892007-05-25T23:21:00.000-04:002007-07-09T00:02:05.669-04:00

Are there other conditions that you believe should be put in place before giving energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations? (for example, restricting build to the vicinity of existing sites, or restricting build to approximately replacing the existing capacity)Yes - new nuclear power stations should be built underground, in the middle of towns and cities. This

Randal Leavitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13529254319710800686noreply@blogger.com0