1. Rod,
    Nuclear Energy is associated with many “cures” for modern humans, but I’ve recently thought of a way that it could significantly help with global food production AND “sequester” CO2.
    Maybe (probably) the idea is not new — but it is new to me.
    (1) float a large nuclear power plant far out in the ocean (in an area that gets a good amount of sunlight, but that has a low level of plankton)
    (2) cool the NPP with deep ocean water (using concepts that have been kicked around for decades as related to the OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) concept
    (3) the nutrient-rich deep ocean water will provide the “missing ingredient” for plankton to thrive
    (4) establish mariculture operations which could include growing shellfish on ropes — the calcium carbonate in the shells constitutes “sequestered” CO2
    As I say, this idea has probably been the subject of discussion in the past — but I have not heard that discussion.

    1. @martin burkle

      I clipped the segment. They talk about Fukushima at the beginning and breeder reactors at the end of the less than 6 minute clip you can play from this post.

      In the original three hour show, it starts at about 40:33

  2. “Radiation isn’t something you really need to be afraid of. By itself, radiation is not something that’s going to kill you, indiscriminately” (6:03)

    Emphasis in original. Which is certainly good to know, but not everyone will find Curry and Dvorak authoritative. Would one care to give a concise definition for “indiscriminate” in this context, just for completeness?


  3. Ed, this is exactly why we refer listeners to experts such as Rod.

    It doesn’t always take an authoritative voice to get someone interested in thinking outside the mainstream messaging.


  4. LOL, expert? That is hilarious. Adam Curry, Rod is by no means an expert on nuclear power. Have you ever read his resume. Nor is he by any means qualified to comment on the biological effects ionizing radiation has on humans, not by a long shot. Go ahead, read his resume and validate his work history. He has no legitimate experience or education as a nuclear physicist which is what he would need to be to give credibility to his strong pro-nuclear opinions. As a nuclear power plant operator his training on nuclear physics is limited and there is no education in the field of Radiobiology. Is this a person you would want making decisions that may put the public at risk from nuclear power?

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts