Added: 4 years ago
From: amameli
Views: 7,269
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (52)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I think Nuclear energy can only be a temporary fix.

    

  • I totally agree with most of Lovelock's ideas on the Earth being a living organism that self-regulates to allow life to exis but I think he is paranoid about climate change. I don't believe climate change is actually a negative thing. The earth has 2 balance points: completely covered with ice and completely ice free. We have been out of balance for several million years so I think as part of the Earth we are bringing us back to balance and learning to live in equilibrium with our planet.

  • @supertona83 Lovelock's a difficult person to figure out. He almost seems to want some sort of climate apocalypse to happen so that we get "punished" by Gaia for our wickedness. Maybe because he's 92 years old has lived in near-isolation in the countryside for decades he doesn't give a shit what happens to society. Sometimes he sounds brilliant, other times like one of those old men yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

  • There is no hast, any where. If one believe in his own people then one could educate the population and then Society regulate its self in no time (20-40 years).

    What we should be doing is finding ways for our future Generations so that they dont Cut jungles like you did, destroy the world until now, like your kind did until now. Arent you a shame, dont you think that people have Brain, and they can see through your lays.....!!?

  • Why dont you tell people the throuth.That there was 35 miljon in Iran and Today 2 times that. Haiti population was 1/9 of now. and the same history all over the world, Specially Africa. YOU destroy their Economi and land Product, and THEN you FLOOD their market with chep GEN. Manipulated SHEET. Every body knows that when you put to much food in a such countrys(that you helped destroyed). the population Grow Logaritmly, and THEN YOU COME OUT AND SAY 2 much people in the world !!? How Much lays.!?

  • James Lovelock is a fraud - he speaks with a forked tongue - firstly in the 1970's saying that environmentalists were wrong to try and prevent the oil pipelines and now - pushing the top polluter - nuclear -as a solution. It is worse than pushing for the addition of arsenic into beer to prevent binge drinking.

  • @Artivistmb

    Nuclear power is top polluter? Simply not true.

  • you should try visting chernobyl, it's really nice now, no humans means there are deers, birds and growing forest, were before there was only a city.

  • Until science speaks? that sounds a lot like a religious expectation.

  • @sbehl42 It would do if it were not stooped in logic and reason.

  • I hate these fatalists.

    I wish at the birth of the industrial revolution that they would have thought about waste disposal beyond the ocean as a dumping ground.

    I wish that men and women and children's options were not based on their geography and in some/many cases on their gender, race, sexuality, religion, personal views, ability...

    Til Science speaks, placing its sweltering head beyond its own liturgy, will we be able to move out of the rut that former 'ist's have subjected us all to. Viva

  • I agree 100% with soylentgreenb. A properly designed & maintained nuclear power station is the safest form of energy available. The amount of radioactivity in nuclear waste is utterly trivial compared to that which was released in nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s & those tests didn't render the planet uninhabitable. Plus you can decomisssion a nuclear reactor when something new & even safer is developed; you can't decomission 10,000 years of catastrophic climate change.

  • "Rather, it will likely increase them."

    At 300 ppm ore grade as mined at Rössing in Namibia you get 100 times more energy out than the energy you put in. Mining could easily be done with electrical power if you wish(it is in many parts of the world already).

  • "Like all finite resources economical uranium will eventually disappear."

    There's 3 ppm U and 10 ppm Th on average in the Earth's crust. Used properly that's equivalent to over 100 barrels of oil.

    The cost of yellowcake in LWRs that extract ~1% of the embodied energy is $1 per oil barrel equivalent. We're not going to bother with breeder reactors or extracting uranium from low grade ores for a very long time.

  • What are you suggest to do with the nuclear waist?

    Remember Chernobyl?

    People still dying there from radiation!

  • "What are you suggest to do with the nuclear waist?"

    Use the remaining 99% of the energy we didn't extract on the first pass through a light water reactor. Extract fission platenoids and reuse valuable isotopes. Glassify the rest.

    "Remember Chernobyl?"

    Yes. 56 people died and according to the LNT model an additional 4 000 might eventually die. Coal power kills 30 000 per year in just the US and that's without any accidents.

  • I'm taking about radioactive waist, which even today has a great problem finding location to store! No one wants it!

    "Coal power kills 30 000 per year in just the US"

    Yes! Automobile kills 50,000/year, don't stop people driving it.

    Nuclear accident can devastate a hole area, inhabitable for hundreds of years, cost of clean up in the billions.

    More nuclear power, more chance for accidents and mistakes.

    Earthquakes, human clumsiness, etc...!

    See, Chernobyl!

  • Comment removed

  • Nothing is secure, even if it's technically sound.

    terrorism, earthquake, natural disasters

    etc.. they all factors to consider.

    Nuclear technology just scares people.

    Would you buy property next to a nuclear power plant, where your children grows up?

  • @elvereth yeah sure

  • France bury it, and they havent had any problems. Infact as time passes nuclear waste becomes no more radioactive than the uranium in which it came. It is relatively safe putting it BACK into the earth.

  • This is so sad... how can you believe such an atrocity. English speakers....

  • You need to take a long walk off of a short solar panel.

  • "A very important and little-discussed isotope that is routinely emitted

    in large quantities into the air and waste water from nuclear

    power plants is tritium (H3), a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, composed

    of one proton and two neutrons. Tritium has a half-life of 12.4

    years and as such is radioactive for 248 years. H3 combines readily

    with oxygen to form tritiated water (H3O)." - Helen Caldicott

  • A very important and little-discussed isotope that is routinely emitted

    in large quantities into the air and waste water from nuclear

    power plants is tritium (H3)..."

    Fractions of a thousandth of background radiation.

    Not even the people who vehemently protest care. After all, they willingly subject themselves to thousands of times higher radiation doses from routine medical imagining like dental x-rays and mammography. They don't protest coal plants for emitting more radiation than nuclear.

  • We really have no choice if we expect to stop burning carbon based fuel. Solar, wind, and nuclear will all be needed.

  • Nuclear energy is way too dangerous to our health and environment. What do you people propose to do with the waste when Yucca is full?

  • recycle the waste

  • You need to check out Dr. Helen Caldicott. Then get back to me.

  • I have. That woman is totally irrational.

  • I thought that once but not any more. She might repeat the same ideas over and over and over... and she might use fear to sell books... but she also happens to be very intelligent and well informed. I studied nuclear physics at a world renowned university. In the end I gave it a big thumbs down. Perhaps it is time for people to start listening to ecologists over physicists... dont' ya think?

  • "Nuclear energy is way too dangerous to our health and environment. What do you people propose to do with the waste when Yucca is full?"

    I think they'll relize that Yucca was a mistake and dig up the slightly used fuel again.

  • Thanks for the vid! I think James Lovelock is the most remarkable scientist of our times. His ideas are sharp, holistic, brave and inspiring. They always reveal new insights to the essence of Life and the unique circumstances of our Planet. After having read 4 of his books and several articles by him, he's a number one hero also to me.

  • I have no problem with Nuclear Energy. The problem is that there is no where near enough nuclear material on this planet for that to be our only source of alternative energy.

  • "I have no problem with Nuclear Energy. The problem is that there is no where near enough nuclear material on this planet for that to be our only source of alternative energy."

    On average there's over 100 barrels of oil equivalent in a tonne of the Earth's crust(3 ppm U, 10 ppm Th). That's enough for the next billion years or so.

    Uranium is far too cheap for any business to consider breeders right now.

  • The new Generation IV nuclear plants RE-use the uranium, over and over again. That means there is plenty of nuclear material here for hundreds and hundreds of years of power.

  • One scientist who doesn't just speak of politics for once..

  • I just read his book Revenge of Gaia. Haunting, compelling.

  • Agreed on all points friend.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more