[mos6507]

Even more traditional uranium based nukes can do it. Page 92 of the uranium supply thread pointed out that we have generations and generations of uranium.

That is with or without breeders? I don't like the way the US is consuming uranium currently. It may work, but it's wasteful.

[outcast]

Even more traditional uranium based nukes can do it. Page 92 of the uranium supply thread pointed out that we have generations and generations of uranium.

That is with or without breeders? I don't like the way the US is consuming uranium currently. It may work, but it's wasteful.

The US really should reprocess its waste to cut down on it and make more efficient use of what we have.


But even without breeders we have huge amounts of it. I think we should also invest in Thorium alongside it just so we don't have all our eggs in one basket.

EDIT: and the reason we aren't using breeders is because there is already too much uranium, so economically it makes no sense to use them at the moment.

[Zero-point]

cloudsky are you serious? You need a refresher course on your basic nuclear physics. I'm going to try and be nice since most people including you don't understand thorium reactors or the thorium fuel cycle. On the top of the following blog is a few links that simply explains what thorium reactors are and the thorium fuel cycle.

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com

Where did the dam thorium shills come from? Thorium is a joke like ethanol, what you guys work for haliburton or something?

Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. Although not fissile itself, 232Th will absorb slow neutrons to produce 233U, which is fissile. Hence, like 238U, it is fertile.

Problems include the high cost of fuel fabrication due partly to the high radioactivity of 233U which is a result of its contamination with traces of the short-lived 232U; the similar problems in recycling thorium due to highly radioactive 228Th; some weapons proliferation risk of 233U; and the technical problems (not yet satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing. Much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or where) abundant uranium is available.

BS and a big waste of money.

[outcast]

cloudsky are you serious?

Either that or he's just a troll, hard to tell at this point.

[Starvid]

Before you build a 1500 MW unit, you certainly need to build a series of test reactors. No one has been working with this technology since the Oak Ridge people and their crazy aircraft reactor experiment, almost half a century ago.

But this would be a great project for a university. Have them build a 100 kW unit, then a 1 MW unit and then a 10 MW one. Then you could have Fortum and Vattenfall build a 100 MW reactor, and when all the hurdles have been dealt with and if it seems to make sense, you could shoot for 1500 MW.

But as far as I know, there are still technical issues to deal with before this technology can be commercialised.

The cost and time estimates are completely up in the air. Currently no one really knows what even LWR's cost, so how the Hell would anyone know what a MSR would cost?

[Tanada]

Before you build a 1500 MW unit, you certainly need to build a series of test reactors. No one has been working with this technology since the Oak Ridge people and their crazy aircraft reactor experiment, almost half a century ago.

But this would be a great project for a university. Have them build a 100 kW unit, then a 1 MW unit and then a 10 MW one. Then you could have Fortum and Vattenfall build a 100 MW reactor, and when all the hurdles have been dealt with and if it seems to make sense, you could shoot for 1500 MW.

But as far as I know, there are still technical issues to deal with before this technology can be commercialised.

The cost and time estimates are completely up in the air. Currently no one really knows what even LWR's cost, so how the Hell would anyone know what a MSR would cost?

I can't find the relevant links at the moment but Germany was working pretty hard on the MOSEL design in the early 1980's before Chernobyl and the MSM scared the beejeebers out of the civilian population. It is the medium size MSR you are wishing for except it was designed to have a harder neutron spectrum to provide a better breeding ratio and more fuel flexibility.

[Starvid]

Interesting, I stand corrected!

[outcast]

Plus India is pushing Thorium research since they have almost no uranium and lots of thorium.

[skeptik]

The more eggs in the basket, the better as far as I'm concerned, and those include renewables, nuclear, more efficient energy use, and conservation - systemic & lifestyle change.

I hope the Finns go with this. At the very least it will provide the rest of us a lot of useful data.

[IslandCrow]

The company paying for the new nuclear power plant is none to pleased with the delays and is claiming a huge sum for breach of contract, although claiming back 2.4 out 3 billion seems a little steep to me:

Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) has indicated .....it feels entitled to damages of about 2.4 billion euros from France's Areva and Germany's Siemens......

A consortium comprising Areva and Siemens is building a nuclear power station for TVO with the project running 38 months behind schedule.
......

Siemens had said on Monday it would sell its 34-per cent stake in the consortium.

TVO signed the three-billion-euro turnkey contract with the consortium in December 2003 with a clause saying the power station would be finished this year.

Following a spate of delays, the consortium now expects construction to be complete in 2012.

Link

[Munqi]

Discussing this issue on a normal forum usually doesnt make me much wiser because most people still dont understand the situation we're in. So from a peak oil perspective: Should we join NATO?

[Nickel]

Discussing this issue on a normal forum usually doesnt make me much wiser because most people still dont understand the situation we're in. So from a peak oil perspective: Should we join NATO?

Are you in a big hurry to have your troops sent off to foreign countries that never attacked or threatened yours just because the Yanks and the Brits lean on you to do what's right for the Anglosphere? Then sure, come on in.

[dinopello]

Finland has a lot going for it. Not the least of which is one of the better Cello Metal bands. NATO would benefit from Finland, if I were Finnish, I would want to know how it would benefit Finland. Are there security threats the Fins are concerned about ? Looking at the EIA data, it looks like Finland doesn't extract any NG or Coal and very little oil. Surprisingly high percapita electricty useage but low population density. Looks like Nuclear is the best bet? I'm just getting this from the google. Energy security is probably an issue I'm guessing.

[ReverseEngineer]

You are witnessing a one to many fracture here on all levels. Large aggregate systems are breaking down. NATO is one of those destined to fail in the near future, along with the EU and the confederation of US States. The depletion of the Oil resource makes these kind of large scale organizations impossible to maintain.

There simply is no purpose right now in joining NATO. It would not enhance your security, and the obligations you would have being part of NATO would outweigh any benefits you might get from that.

Most problems the Finns will face are like everybody else, they are internal. NATO cannot help you with your unemployed or your trade issues. Its a waste of time.

Reverse Engineer

[dorlomin]

Discussing this issue on a normal forum usually doesnt make me much wiser because most people still dont understand the situation we're in. So from a peak oil perspective: Should we join NATO?

NATO is in essance a grouping of liberal democracies pledging mutual defence. 90% of people on here see breakdown, I don't think it is the only one of the many possible outcomes. It is quite possible that many of the countries of the world will co-operate to meet the crisis. Given the huge stride in integrating Europe over the past 60 years and the forces (the first 45 years of the 20th centuary) that led to that integration I think that a combined European responce is quite likely.

(see this as an example. http://www.desertec.org/ )

In these circumstances a being inside the common economic ubrella and the common defence one would be a huge plus in deterring the potential for agression.

The main day to day function of NATO is to create integratable comand and logistic trains. That allows its memebers to rapidly integrate their forces for whatever mission is needed.

From a purely Finnish perspective your big worry is your former overlords, Russia. Being inside NATO would make Russian threats less dangerous and force Russia to be more cautious about threatening it. You would need to go to war to defend the likes of Turkey or Estonia should someone attack them, but I think on blanace your better on the inside.

Out of curiousity is Finland going with the Grippen, Rafael or the Eurofighter?

[Plantagenet]

Are there security threats the Fins are concerned about ?

Finland has a long history of wars with Russia. A huge part of Finland (Karelia) was forcibly incorporated into Russia after Russia invaded Finland at the start of WWII. The small Baltic country of Estonia is also ethnically Finnish. While Estonia shook off Russian control when the USSR disentegrated, Finnish Karelia couldn't get free and is still part of Russia.

The Russian Bear is prowling again. Russia invaded Georgia and stole territory from that country just last year.

If Finland sees a renewed danger to its territory from renewed Russian military aggression in the future, then Finland might be wise to join NATO now. Of course, there is a danger that allying militarily with America and Europe by joining NATO might actually provoke Russia and put Finland in Russia's crosshairs again....

[dinopello]

Seems like a informed analysis, Plantagenet. Thanks. Can you see Russia from your porch too ?

[errorist]

Are there security threats the Fins are concerned about ?

Finland has a long history of wars with Russia. A huge part of Finland (Karelia) was forcibly incorporated into Russia after Russia invaded Finland at the start of WWII. The small Baltic country of Estonia is also ethnically Finnish. While Estonia shook off Russian control when the USSR disentegrated, Finnish Karelia couldn't get free and is still part of Russia.

The Russian Bear is prowling again. Russia invaded Georgia and stole territory from that country just last year.

If Finland sees a renewed danger to its territory from renewed Russian military aggression in the future, then Finland might be wise to join NATO now. Of course, there is a danger that allying militarily with America and Europe by joining NATO might actually provoke Russia and put Finland in Russia's crosshairs again....

You are wrong. The small Baltic country Estonia is not ethnically finnish. We have different language belonging to the Finno-Ugric language family here - estonian. Different nation - estonians are not finnish. Think back to the times when last ice age ended and lands here were populated.

Should Finland join NATO? Think yourselves if confronting Russia is in your interests. Do you want your national interests being subdued to "international interests"? Do you fear falling into Moscow sphere of infuence ? Ready to help us down south here when our conflict with Russia evolves to war? Ready to send troops to Iraq? Support Shakashvili's Georgia? Your call.

Estonia joined NATO in 2004. Will be "sold" when geopolitical need arises or will be ashes in case of war. Who cares about a state on 45000 km[sup]2[/sup] of land and 1,5 million inhabitants...

[Plantagenet]

[

Finland has a long history of wars with Russia. A huge part of Finland (Karelia) was forcibly incorporated into Russia after Russia invaded Finland at the start of WWII. The small Baltic country of Estonia is also ethnically Finnish. While Estonia shook off Russian control when the USSR disentegrated, Finnish Karelia couldn't get free and is still part of Russia.....

The small Baltic country Estonia is not ethnically finnish. We have different language belonging to the Finno-Ugric language family here - estonian. Different nation - estonians are not finnish. ...

Of course Estonia is a different nation then Finland. However, the Estonian language is closely related to Finnish. You yourself acknowledge that Estonian is part of the Finno-Ugric language group. The languages are so closely related that many Estonians actively sought to receive Finnish TV during Soviet times, because they could get news reports that were censored within the USSR.

In addition to the close relationship between the Estonian language and the FInnish language, the Estonians themselves have long been considered by academic ethnologists to be a Finnic people closely related to the Finns. This ethnic link was made partly because of the fact that the Estonian language shares many similarities to Finnish. but the assignment of Estonians as a Finnic people has been recently been confirmed and proven beyound a doubt by DNA studies. In fact maternal DNA studies suggest the Finns and Estonians share a common ancestor-- a woman who lived about 50,000 years ago, during marine isotope stage 3 i.e. during the mid-Wurm glaciation of the most recent Ice Age.

CHEERS!

[Micki]

Are there security threats the Fins are concerned about ?

Finland has a long history of wars with Russia. A huge part of Finland (Karelia) was forcibly incorporated into Russia after Russia invaded Finland at the start of WWII. The small Baltic country of Estonia is also ethnically Finnish. While Estonia shook off Russian control when the USSR disentegrated, Finnish Karelia couldn't get free and is still part of Russia.

The Russian Bear is prowling again. Russia invaded Georgia and stole territory from that country just last year.

If Finland sees a renewed danger to its territory from renewed Russian military aggression in the future, then Finland might be wise to join NATO now. Of course, there is a danger that allying militarily with America and Europe by joining NATO might actually provoke Russia and put Finland in Russia's crosshairs again....

No, Finland was part of Russia before WW1. During the Russian revolution they took the opportunity to declare their independence. Before that they were part of Sweden but they actually enjoyed more liberties under Russia particularly in matters concerning language, culture etc. (for example. Swedes tried to make Swedish the dominant language whilst the Ruskies let the Finns speak Finnish.)

I doubt joining NATO would provoke Russia. Wars don't start like that, but sure it could be used as some official reason for trouble if there is another motive. Like WW2 they were making up all sorts of reasons and excuses so that they could get control of the waters from the Baltic to Atlantic.
I however don't see NATO doing a lot to help little Finland whether they are member or not, unless they in turn have something to gain. NATO would not risk war just for little Finland unless once again they had reasons to want war.
Seriosuly, when has a nation gone to war for someone else unless they had something to gain or something important to protect?
And coming back to WW2, it clearly showed that Finland wasn't that important.