Sentences with phrase «thought about nuclear power»

«This earthquake was something that was not foreseen by anybody, but it managed to change the way that people thought about nuclear power rather dramatically,» said Shcherbakova, who also serves as director of the Master of Science in Energy Management program at UT Dallas.

Advanced small modular reactors could change the way we think about nuclear power.

What do you think about nuclear power broadly, and can you tell us some more about what Bussard is doing?

Not exact matches

The recent accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant reinforces the need for renewed thinking about nuclear - waste storage and disposal.

THE world's oceans are thought to contain about 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium, enough fuel to power every nuclear plant on the planet for 6500 years.

«We can now think about building other small detectors that can then be used, for example to monitor the neutrino flux in nuclear power plants.

It's a shame so few people see documentaries, and that so few politicians pay them any attention, because this film has the power to change the way we think about nuclear energy.

old, I had heard so such about the peaceful atom, I thought we would be driving nuclear powered air cars.

> I think that your comments have a bit of «begging the question» about them, in suggesting that the necessity of expanding nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation is an established fact, upon which any «debate» about addressing AGW must be based — rather than an unproven assertion to be argued.

I don't think Cosmic Rays were ever as much about it [AGW], as say, what to do about it; if «it» were indeed happening, whether by anthropogenic causes or combinations or other field properties - nuclear power is NOT the way to go; humans will adapt and survive over shorter time periods in climate than over the half - lives of nuclear fission byproducts.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

Whatever you think about the financial and environmental risks attending nuclear power, pulling out at that point seemed a classic case of rejecting the good in favor of the perfect.

I made a bunch of comments about this post here: http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/11/definite-maybe-on-nuclear-power.html I think it mostly comes down to economics - if nuclear power is competitive, it's probably worth pursuing.

Think about and answer this question: Why do we need nuclear power?

If you don't care about climate change and you think that nuclear power plants pose some unique danger, which the science does not support at all, then maybe you don't care.

I've been thinking about what Monbiot has to say about nuclear power, and how it interacts, so to speak, with the climate issue.

Strides are being made: some of the huge wind farm complexes under construction in China will each produce as much electricity as several nuclear power plants, and an electrified transport system supplemented by the use of bicycles could reshape the way we think about mobility.

One, James Hansen, says that to think world leaders are doing something significant about the problem is «baloney», and urges the use of nuclear power and every other form of energy which does not involve the release of carbon.

To understand the alternative that is being deferred by all the muddleheaded thinking about renewables, bio fuels, energy efficiency etc., nuclear power could provide almost all the world's energy in 2100, 2200,2300, 2400, 2500,....

I'm a fan of nuclear, then, but I don't think there's an emergency about coal, and no need to suddenly shut down all coal - fired power stations.

In reading the comments on nuclear versus other power sources and then some of the earlier comments on whther small scale chages per household versus larger scale power plants, made me think about a tangential issue.

In fact, before Brook heard about fourth generation nuclear, he thought the global warming problem was intractable because his own calculations confirmed the observations of many others (including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, MIT President Susan Hockfield and US Senator Lamar Alexander) regarding the necessity of nuclear power due to the problems with renewables being able to scale to meet our energy needs.

I didn't realise nuclear power in its entirety was banned from discussion but if you think about how nuclear submarines work, I'd say they've found a reasonably successful solution to living in an environment that one day may be where we end up.