Hooray for Nuclear Power

Discuss the application of the Dharma to situations of social, political, environmental and economic suffering and injustice.
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:10 am

Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:46 am
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:10 pm
Nemo wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:26 pm


How do you plan on transporting and storing it? ...
I like the idea of a loose string of solar power plants along an East - West line in any country or group of countries to maximise the hours of generation and minimise the need for storage, e.g. the afternoon sunshine in California supplying the early-evening peak load in New York.

:coffee:
Kim
If we can have the room temperature superconductors and quantum capacitors that make this feasible can I just have a hydrogen fusion reactor in my car?
Of course.

While you're waiting, let's take advantage of steps like this:
A northern Victorian town will soon generate enough electricity to power Melbourne's entire tram network.

The 128-megawatt solar farm at Numurkah, north of Shepparton, took less than a year to build and will use more than 300,000 panels to power the city's trams.

Victorian Minister for Energy Lily D'Ambrosio said the project was the largest in the state.

"The Numurkah solar farm will play an important role in supporting the transformation of our energy system towards clean, renewable energy and reaching our renewable energy target," Ms D'Ambrosio said.

Based just outside of Numurkah in the tiny town of Drumanure, the farm spans 500 hectares of land once used for cattle grazing and cropping.

The carbon emission reduction generated by the farm is the equivalent of taking 75,000 cars off the road or planting 390,000 trees. ...
:reading: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/ ... k/11327346

... and this ...

:reading: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-14/ ... g/11209666

IMO, sitting on our hands while waiting for complete or perfect solutions is a very poor strategy. The problem is one which can be addressed one chunk at a time and we have solutions which will do just that, so let's encourage and celebrate every single one of them.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:40 am

The problem is capitalism can only produce. It cannot distribute in an equitable sustainable way. It will produce until we are all dead if we don't face this fact. There are no technological solutions to capitalism. This means taking power from the elite with capital and they prefer that we all die. :cheers:

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:15 am

Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:40 am
The problem is capitalism can only produce. It cannot distribute in an equitable sustainable way. It will produce until we are all dead if we don't face this fact. There are no technological solutions to capitalism. This means taking power from the elite with capital and they prefer that we all die. :cheers:
I reckon you're about 95% right on all that so yes, we have a problem. :thinking:

However, I'm not going to attack my local millionaires with a machete. I'm a Buddhist, right?
So what can I do? Encourage and celebrate any and all actions which slow down our mad rush towards ecological catastrophe, and hope that the anti-capitalists gain enough traction in the community to change the system without violent revolution.
But that movement is now roughly where eco-activism was 25 years ago, and there won't be a civilisation of any sort in 25 years' time if we can't slow climate change significantly in the next 5 years.
So what can I do? Encourage and celebrate any and all actions which slow down our mad rush towards ecological catastrophe.

I could pray as well, but I don't think that is the best use of my time.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:16 am

Nemo wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:26 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:01 am
More energy falls on the world's deserts in six hours than the world consumes in a year,
Desertec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
How do you plan on transporting and storing it? You can also get 100MW from a single gram of water, theoretically.
The plans are already in action, Morocco has a very large solar energy assemblage called Noor. Electricity is transmitted with high voltage lines, the loss in 1000 km is only 1%, in 3000 km 3%. Morocco plans to be an electricity producer. Powerlines across the Gibraltar strait exist or are being built. Similar plans exist for other North African countries.
Different electricity storage systems also exist already, in Spain and in other European countries. One method is pumping water into a reservoir atop a hill or a montain. Energy exists then as potential energy that can be used with turbines in the normal fashion. There are pictures of these reservoirs and other information in Wikipedia for example. Very large batteries also exist.

http://www.nurenergie.com/index.php/eng ... ts/tunisia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Morocco
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:09 pm

Means of storing energy, and there are many https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:34 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:09 pm
Means of storing energy, and there are many https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
Yes, and if you crunch the numbers they are mostly garbage. None comes close to a tank of gasoline so far. That isn't really the issue though. In my locale nuclear is the best solution. In yours probably not. Maybe renewables works for you. It's a second or third best solution here. My province is already down to 10% of electricity from fossil fuels and only from natural gas. We did it using nukes. As did France for half the cost per Kw/h than Germany.

The larger problem is that climate change is not a technological challenge. It hasn't been for 30 years. It is a political one. Solving the problem absolutely requires taking the wealth of climate criminals like the Koch brothers and the Saudi Royals. They would rather watch you die than give it up. That is the real hurdle. How do we tackle that?

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:20 am

Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:34 pm
... The larger problem is that climate change is not a technological challenge. It hasn't been for 30 years. It is a political one.
Yep.
Solving the problem absolutely requires taking the wealth of climate criminals like the Koch brothers and the Saudi Royals. They would rather watch you die than give it up. That is the real hurdle. How do we tackle that?
See thread title: Nuke 'em!
:guns:

:thinking:
Oops! Can't do that. First precept.
Could still celebrate if someone else did it. :twothumbsup:

:thinking:
But they are symptoms, not the cause, of our mess.
Their deaths wouldn't change anything very much, except that their heirs would presumably be young enough to be concerned about the state of the planet in thirty or fifty years' time and act on their concerns.
Meanwhile, I really can't see any alternative to buying as much time as possible for peaceful political and economic change by averting as much climate change as possible.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:58 am

Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:34 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:09 pm
Means of storing energy, and there are many https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
Yes, and if you crunch the numbers they are mostly garbage. None comes close to a tank of gasoline so far. That isn't really the issue though. In my locale nuclear is the best solution. In yours probably not. Maybe renewables works for you. It's a second or third best solution here. My province is already down to 10% of electricity from fossil fuels and only from natural gas. We did it using nukes. As did France for half the cost per Kw/h than Germany.

The larger problem is that climate change is not a technological challenge. It hasn't been for 30 years. It is a political one. Solving the problem absolutely requires taking the wealth of climate criminals like the Koch brothers and the Saudi Royals. They would rather watch you die than give it up. That is the real hurdle. How do we tackle that?
The problem is mainly psychological, people are just attached to gasoline, and cannot think of anything else. Before cars people were attached to horses and chariots. At first cars were like chariots without horses. Energy was measured in hp, horse power. Now the horses have been finally forgotten.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:57 am

Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:34 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:09 pm
Means of storing energy, and there are many https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
Yes, and if you crunch the numbers they are mostly garbage. None comes close to a tank of gasoline so far. That isn't really the issue though. In my locale nuclear is the best solution. In yours probably not. Maybe renewables works for you. It's a second or third best solution here. My province is already down to 10% of electricity from fossil fuels and only from natural gas. We did it using nukes. As did France for half the cost per Kw/h than Germany.
That is just irrational, 100MW is 100MW regardless of the source. 10MW batteries are operational, and bigger ones are being built.
China has the pumped hydro storage capacity of 32 GW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-st ... lectricity
It is really exciting that so many different systems of energy storage are being built right now. Experience of their functioning in practice is gained all the time.

When nuclear reactors are demolished it will cost a fortune. The sums of decommissioning them are in the range of 100 billion €/$, it is estimated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:18 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:57 am
Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:34 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:09 pm
Means of storing energy, and there are many https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
Yes, and if you crunch the numbers they are mostly garbage. None comes close to a tank of gasoline so far. That isn't really the issue though. In my locale nuclear is the best solution. In yours probably not. Maybe renewables works for you. It's a second or third best solution here. My province is already down to 10% of electricity from fossil fuels and only from natural gas. We did it using nukes. As did France for half the cost per Kw/h than Germany.
That is just irrational, 100MW is 100MW regardless of the source. 10MW batteries are operational, and bigger ones are being built.
China has the pumped hydro storage capacity of 32 GW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-st ... lectricity
It is really exciting that so many different systems of energy storage are being built right now. Experience of their functioning in practice is gained all the time.

When nuclear reactors are demolished it will cost a fortune. The sums of decommissioning them are in the range of 100 billion €/$, it is estimated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
You are confusing energy storage with energy generation. Batteries are just a storage medium like gasoline. Gasoline has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery which is why people love it. Batteries, even mechanical ones like water pumping, create no power. Some are very inefficient. You are calling irrational things that are actually built and have already solved the problem. Then positing theoretical best case scenarios that have rarely worked efficiently in the real world or can only work in specific geological circumstances. It would be great if everyone got their power from hydroelectric, but that is not feasible. Go look at the cool graphs that show the real world today using nukes and getting it done. CANDU reactors work well and are better than dying from climate change. The ONLY countries meeting targets are using nukes on a massive scale.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:42 pm

Nemo wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:18 pm
... The ONLY countries meeting targets are using nukes on a massive scale.
By building new nukes? Tell us.

:popcorn:
Kim

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:26 am

Nemo wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:18 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:57 am
Nemo wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:34 pm


Yes, and if you crunch the numbers they are mostly garbage. None comes close to a tank of gasoline so far. That isn't really the issue though. In my locale nuclear is the best solution. In yours probably not. Maybe renewables works for you. It's a second or third best solution here. My province is already down to 10% of electricity from fossil fuels and only from natural gas. We did it using nukes. As did France for half the cost per Kw/h than Germany.
That is just irrational, 100MW is 100MW regardless of the source. 10MW batteries are operational, and bigger ones are being built.
China has the pumped hydro storage capacity of 32 GW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-st ... lectricity
It is really exciting that so many different systems of energy storage are being built right now. Experience of their functioning in practice is gained all the time.

When nuclear reactors are demolished it will cost a fortune. The sums of decommissioning them are in the range of 100 billion €/$, it is estimated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
You are confusing energy storage with energy generation. Batteries are just a storage medium like gasoline. Gasoline has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery which is why people love it. Batteries, even mechanical ones like water pumping, create no power. Some are very inefficient. You are calling irrational things that are actually built and have already solved the problem. Then positing theoretical best case scenarios that have rarely worked efficiently in the real world or can only work in specific geological circumstances. It would be great if everyone got their power from hydroelectric, but that is not feasible. Go look at the cool graphs that show the real world today using nukes and getting it done. CANDU reactors work well and are better than dying from climate change. The ONLY countries meeting targets are using nukes on a massive scale.
The point with storage is what the normal people usually say about wind power and solar power: "what do you do on a windless/cloudy day?"
The energy storage solutions refute that common error in thinking.The other thing is that there is plenty of wind and sunlight etc available. Nuclear energy is not necessary. Ofcourse it can be used it, if we decide to do so. But it is misleading to say that other sources of energy do not exist on a massive scale.

Horse (or bull etc) power and gasoline power both originate from the radiance of sunlight. This is just an interesting thought. They are energy of sunlight through biosynthesis.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:41 pm

I wonder how many other countries are are solidly locked out of the nuclear option as Australia?
The idea of producing nuclear energy in Australia before 2040 is absurd

There is no chance of deploying it in the required timeframe. Fortunately, there are alternatives

The debate about nuclear power in Australia flickered to life with the suggestion by the New South Wales deputy premier, John Barilaro, that small modular reactors could be constructed in regional centres. Prominent backbencher Barnaby Joyce followed up with a call for a parliamentary inquiry.

Joyce and Barilaro revived this idea after the release of a report by Industry Super Australia, which took as the starting point the need to replace most of Australia’s coal-fired power stations by 2040. The report concluded: “It is difficult to see how the the problem can be resolved without some nuclear in the mix.”

It would perhaps be churlish to observe that the small reactors advocated by Barilaro exist only as designs and may never be built. There is a much bigger obstacle which is essentially impossible to overcome.

To make the central point as bluntly as possible: even with a crash program there is no chance of deploying nuclear power in Australia in the required timeframe. ...
:reading: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -is-absurd

:thinking:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:06 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:41 pm
I wonder how many other countries are are solidly locked out of the nuclear option as Australia?
The idea of producing nuclear energy in Australia before 2040 is absurd ...
:reading: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -is-absurd

:thinking:
Kim
Even our unionists, the guys who would get the jobs building any new power stations, agree: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rende ... 1268f6d078

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:13 pm

I wouldn't build them in Australia either until the design gets cheaper. Here it's different though. We designed the best reactors in the world, have the existing infrastructure, the skill sets are still viable and the ground in parts of Ontario is quite radioactive anyway. Radon poisoning is a serious and naturally occurring problem in parts of Ontario. Losing those generations of knowledge by mothballing all our plants would be unwise. Just as solar was changed by better engineering nuclear can follow the same trajectory. It leads to clean fusion power. Nuclear is a long term plan. Kill it and we would have to reinvent the wheel for all the practical skills surrounding it's implementation once the next stage is perfected.

5 nuke plants came online last year and honestly the engineering on some of them was below the standards we would pass. It really needs to be done at the state and research university level with a focus on the science and not profit. Having actually lived off grid for years it wasn't amazing. Power was expensive and needed to be rationed. Solar ate up huge amounts of space. Wind was noisy and killed tons of birds. There will be no perfect solution.

The bottom line is our personal decisions will have little effect. 100 companies make 71% of global emissions. They are controlled by corrupt oligarchs who are happy to see us all die instead of giving up a fraction of their wealth. If you aren't talking about taking the wealth of murderous criminals like King Salman or the Koch brothers you are failing to grasp the reality of the problem. Putting a panel on your roof has zero effect on them. You only have access to the remaining 29% of emissions and that is not enough to prevent global catastrophe. Carbon needs to be criminalized and rationed. If not the best plan is buying remote arable land that is not in a flood plain.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... ate-change

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:10 am

Here's a good one-page explainer for the different nuclear technologies - fission vs fusion, thorium vs uranium, tokamaks vs laser fusion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... et/6777180

:reading:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:37 pm

One of our think-tanks has just come out with a report saying what I've been saying about nuclear, i.e. it's too expensive and too slow.
Australia's continuing renewable energy boom means the development of nuclear power is not a viable option, a new report from public policy think-tank the Australia Institute has concluded.

With the potential for nuclear power set to be examined by a federal parliamentary inquiry, the institute said the rapid development of wind and solar resources, particularly in South Australia, would render new "baseload" power resources like nuclear uneconomic.

The think-tank's latest National Energy Emissions Audit found that for 44 hours during the month of July, South Australia generated enough wind and solar energy to power 100 per cent of its own demand, with some left over for export to eastern states. ...

Key points:

The Australia Institute's energy emissions audit for the month July was released today
It found SA's renewable energy generation is setting a "real example" for other states
It also found nuclear energy would not complement a high renewables sector ...
:reading: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-27/ ... a/11450850

:thumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:04 pm

Two more reports - one from Friends of the Earth and another, by the same author but published in RenewEconomy, which reads like a references list for it. Anyone wanting more data than these two pieces provide is probably going to want a sworn affidavit from the sun to say that yes, it does intend to rise tomorrow morning.
https://www.foe.org.au/nuclear_power_climate_change
https://reneweconomy.com.au/small-modul ... ars-73761/

tl;dr = nuclear power is far too expensive for anyone to even consider without massive government subsidies, and the "new" small modular reactors are even worse in every respect than the big ones they are supposed to replace.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:12 am

I have so far read about 140 pages of Unmaking the Bomb https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/221 ... g-the-bomb
It still possible even with the canadian type of nuclear reactors, that it could become a spring board to making a nuclear bomb. First of all, a country needs people trained in nuclear physics, if it wants to make a N-bomb in the future. The peaceful nuclear reactors necessitate the training of these people, who are also absolutely necessary for military nuclear technology. Pakistan had this very problem, that they didn't have capable people trained in nuclear physics, (this is told in Unmaking the Bomb).

Also, the political situation could change in Canada, Brian Ruhe Show could ascend to power. He could team with David Icke from England and they could together start a military campaing against the Rotschild family. They could then convert the canadian nuclear program to serve their newly found purpose... This is bad humour, but this kind of turn of events is possible according to the Unmaking the Bomb.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Aemilius » Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:53 am

It appears that germans had built, or were building, a nuclear reactor during the IIWW, it was called Uranmaschine. At the end of the war the Allied forces bombed a german production plant of nuclear materials to ashes, because it seemed to be going into the hands of the Soviets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nu ... ns_program
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

Post Reply

Return to “Engaged Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests