ραδιενεργοί-αντιραδιενεργοί που ΜΙΣΟΥΝ την αυτάρκεια

Στην επισυναπτόμενη ανταλλαγή απόψεων για νέα ραδιενεργά εργοστάσια, αλλά και ειρηνικό έλεγχο των γεννήσεων, ΔΕΝ υπάρχει ΚΑΜΙΑ σκέψη για αποκέντρωση σε αυτάρκη κτηνοτροφικά χωριά, ενώ φοβικοί ραδιενεργοί και αντιραδιενεργοί ΠΑΡΑΒΛΕΠΟΥΝ ότι αμέτρητοι αιωνόβιοι τις τελευταίες ΧΙΛΙΑΔΕΣ χρόνια έφτασαν και ξεπέρασαν τα 100 ήρεμα χρόνια τους, ακριβώς επειδή έζησαν με αυτάρκη κτηνοτροφία. Φαίνεται ότι η αδιαφορία για αυτάρκεια συνοδεύεται από μίσος για τις κατσίκες, βοηθούσας τής κατευθυνόμενης μεσανατολίτικης παραίσθησης ότι οι ανυπότακτοι πρέπει να τιμωρούνται από ένα επινοημένο σκιάχτρο - 'σατανά με κέρατα'... Πώς θα επιβιώσουν 7 δις εξαρτημένοι από τις ευάλωτες σε χαλάζι-πλημμύρες-ακρίδες-ξηρασία-αρρώστιες καλλιέργειες σπόρων (από τους επεκτατικούς-υπερπληθυσμιακούς, φονιάδες γεωργούς Κάιν), που ως και τα πουλιά τούς αποφεύγουν όταν βρίσκουν σκουλήκια και έντομα, αυτό, φαίνεται, θα το απαντήσει ο κανιβαλισμός κατά τον ήδη ΑΝΑΓΓΕΛΘΕΝΤΑ επερχόμενο πολυετή ηφαιστειακό χειμώνα... Τα επόμενα 2 σχόλια (που υπάρχουν μετά την ανάρτηση), συνοψίζουν κάπως τον παραλογισμό των ραδιενεργών: GM August 10, 2010 at 12:57 am 1. We probably do have time to phase out coals with LFTRs on time to avert a really major climate catastrophe if we embark on a WWII type of mobilization program (not that it will happen). 2. But we have no time to replace oil and natural gas, especially the former, which has probably peaked already, as it will take decades to do that. 3. LFTRs do absolutely nothing to solve the problem of fossil aquifer depletion (you can desalinate water for drinking, but that’s a small fraction of the total usage, it is unrealistic to think that you can desalinate and transport water over thousands of kilometers to sustain agriculture in the regions that will have depleted their aquifers [υδροφόρους ορίζοντες] in the next few decades) 4. LFTRs do absolutely nothing to address the depletion of phosphate deposits. Again, no phosphates = going back to pre-Green revolution agricultural yields. 5. LFTRs do absolutely nothing to address the issues of topsoil loss, salt build up due to irrigation, etc. 6. LFTRs do absolutely nothing to address the issue of general ecosystem collapse, especially in the oceans, due to overfishing, deforestation, habitat loss due to “development”, etc. 7. What LFTRs can do is give a false sense of “problem solved” and encourage further growth of population and per capita consumption to even more unsustainable levels, thus speeding up the process of collapse. Which is the reason for Holdren’s remark about cheap energy. Τechnology is not a silver bullet against reality, it can only operate within the very real physical limits of our planet and this has to be always remembered. Peter Melia August 9, 2010 at 11:30 pm Looking at the first diagram, it would appear that the radioactive coolant salt passes through a heat exchanger that “does not contain nuclear materials”. Even so, the fluid in the heat exchanger must become radioactive by virtue of it’s exposure to the radioactive coolant salt. The “newly” radioactive fluid passes through a helium heat exchanger, during which the helium must also become radioactive, for the same reason. So therefore the turbines and compressors become radioactive in their turn. Even if these stages of radioactivity transfer reduce, at each stage, they still occur and over a 50-year plant lifetime accumulation must reach considerable levels. How is maintenance of the moving machinery safely done, let alone replacement of, say transfer medium pipes, especially at bends, which tend to erode under the influence of fluid velocity, over time? Normal steam boiler superheater bends, for instance, tend to have a 10-12 year life, even if the designers have the forethought to increase the thickness at the bends, to allow for the erosion. Conversation with a little girl on a plane A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.' The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?' 'Oh, I don't know,' said the stranger. 'How about nuclear power?' and he smiles. OK, ' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?' The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.' To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know sh *t?'