Even with decades worth of passionate discussions about CO2 emissions, it is difficult for some people to comprehend the scale of the problem. This video graphic takes a big step in the right direction.
The creator has helped us to see what it would mean if we packed fossil fuel waste from a single large city into one ton packages and kept them all in one place.
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
Thanks for the link. That discussion was rather educational. It certainly does sound like the NRC will have difficulty completing…
So according to the NRC if there are people with concerns, the only response is to make regulations even more…
Michael Did you get a chance to listen to the podcast? The key innovation that Zeno has compared to those…
I see what Zeno is now… They give it away on their webpage. If you look under “Team” you will…
Neat episode and neat company! It is nice to see someone *actually* pursuing cheaper RPS’s since that has been a…
On April 4 and 5, I had the pleasure of attending the 9th annual The Future of Energy Summit organized by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and held at the Grand Hyatt next door to New York’s Grand Central Station. The organizing theme of this year’s event, The Age of Plenty, the Age of Competition…
A few of my pronuclear friends have been disappointed by the treatment of nuclear energy in the recently released final draft of the IPCC working group III Summary for policy makers. For example, Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues thinks that the IPCC is prejudiced against nuclear energy. While there may be some members of…
It has been a long standing absurdity that the clean development mechanisms approved by the Kyoto treaty to reduce the risk of climate change exclude nuclear energy. This year there is momentum building to reevaluate and change a rule that virtually eliminates the option for nations to use the most effective tool available to permanently…
Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science at MIT recently published a short, accessible book titled What We Know About Climate Change. It provides a good summary of the state of our knowledge about the issue, but the final two chapters of the book illustrate a…
Atomic Insights is proud to be hosting the 295th weekly addition of the Carnival of Nuclear Blogs. Here are some of the highlight posts produced during the first full week of 2016. From Yes Vermont Yankee: Vermont Yankee was replaced by natural gas: Doing the numbers By: Meredith Angwin and The replacement for Vermont Yankee…
During the march held in New York City on September 21, PJTV reporter Michelle Fields spoke with Robert F. Kennedy about his plans to change his personal consumption habits. The good news is that RFK Jr. has absolved all of us of having to make any changes in our personal choices; the bad news is…
Nice display, Carbon Visuals. Now how about slapping a caption, “Support electric vehicles and heat. Support Indian Point” at the tail?
James Greenidge
Queens NY
I’d like to see that virtual Mt. Everest of carbon compared to the relatively small “big box” sized warehouse that could neatly contain our nation’s entire inventory of used nuclear fuel.
If we can imagine one of the largest cities creating a mountain of carbon gas in one year, then globally we are creating virtual mountain ranges of carbon every year.
Off-topic but worthy of discussion;
One long overlooked channel of FUD is vintage science or history programming. Just this morning I woke to see on the History Channel a series on aerial tankers. It must’ve been circa early 1990’s and had the clip about the tanker-bomber collision in Spain which involved nuclear bombs. As soon as that was mentioned ominous background music snapped on and the narrator said “…a collision was bad enough, but it could’ve been much much worst” then a flick to an H-bomb exploding. One doesn’t need to be AF crew to know these bombs fly unarmed and even in a crash can’t detonate, yet the program went ahead and implied that. Much the same with done with a report on TMI, showing bunny-suited officials combing through Middleton and the countryside with Geiger counters and telling crying kids to stay sealed behind their windows. Beyond the height of inaccuracy and irresponsibility back then, such tid-bits continue to re-run un-updated and uncorrected through the years and today, sowing further nuclear misconceptions and feeding mistrust and jitters of anything nuclear. This I know because public schools in NYC often recommend these cable science/history shows as references and study resources. So anti-nukers automatically have an ally and “credible media source” to cite to the clueless in their rants. How much can it cost to tack a update correction caption to these old features? They do on the fate of terrorists and celebrities long after their shows were filmed.
James Greenidge
Queens NY