Peter Gooley

Glossodia, Australia

About Peter

Areas of Expertise

coach

I'm passionate about

Learning

Comments & conversations

Noface
Peter Gooley
Posted about 4 years ago
THORIUM. Is it really that safe and great alternative to Nuclear? Is it the Other Miracle that Bill Gates is looking for?
You're absolutely correct.. I HAVE barely touched the subject. I am not an engineer or a physicist, and come from a place of totally ignorance, hence me query out to the world to find people like yourself and Shawn who will know more than me so I can learn the TRUE facts rather than just what I can find on the web. Thank you very much for being a large part of my learning. I'm off to those links you suggested and more research.
Noface
Peter Gooley
Posted about 4 years ago
THORIUM. Is it really that safe and great alternative to Nuclear? Is it the Other Miracle that Bill Gates is looking for?
Hi Shawn, Craig and everyone who has contributed here. .. Thank you so much .. There are still little niggles created by John Large a Nuclear Engineer of Large and Associates,who says there are problems with the Processing cycle to split the fuel from the waste and difficulties actually storing the fuel.. He even commented that the Thorium Reactors don't really work.. He said the problems related to Thorium Rectors are insurmountable, in his opinion!! This was from a news report on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLo73k3OG0&NR=1&feature=fvwp at about the 2:20 point in the video... I guess the question that comes up for me is that is he a Nuclear Engineer and a consultant to the Nuclear industry or is he totally independent and unattached? Listening to that 10 second grab can certainly press the HOLD THE BUS nerve if someone doesn't take the time to learn what is really the truth. Might be time to simplify the message about LFTR to make it more easily communicated..
Noface
Peter Gooley
Posted over 4 years ago
THORIUM. Is it really that safe and great alternative to Nuclear? Is it the Other Miracle that Bill Gates is looking for?
OK.. thanks Wayne and Jouko. If that is what education institutions are putting in our kids heads, then I also have concerns Wayne. I look at the comment that was thrown out there almost off the cuff that if this was a Thorium Reactor, then you would just turn it off.. From what Jouko has just educated me on, I see I was completely mis-informed... good thing I have an enquiring mind and clever people in my life.. well at the end of a keYboARD.. and an 18month old grandson pressing caps lock with his toes..
Noface
Peter Gooley
Posted over 4 years ago
Plankton. Are the solutions we are coming up with to save the planet also taking into account the importance and impact on Plankton?
Thanks John and Harald.. exactly what I thought.. Not sure I agree with it being beyond our comprehension, but I certainly agree with Fascinating. It might be something we don't know just now, but as people gather and share more and more information and raise awareness, like that series, the closer we come to understanding those fascinating links. The more we are prompted to think through all the possible impacts of a solution to the microscopic through to the largest object, potentially the better the outcomes. The real challenge is in finding ways to cover the whole gamut without having to take a prohibitive amount of time, and without glossing over issues for expedience in relation to ROI.
Noface
Peter Gooley
Posted over 4 years ago
Stewart Brand + Mark Z. Jacobson: Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
I've been against Nuclear all my thinking life.. so from about age 20 and am now 54. Japan has not helped me become a lover of Nuclear. One thing that I heard briefly in a news report, was the word Thorium. It is apparently a rare earth mineral that is found with Uranium and dug at the same time. I read the following.. and are yet to check the facts... * It is a very efficient source of power generating material. * It has already been dug up and is sitting in piles * If there is a problem, you just simply turn it off like a light * The waste can not be used to make a bomb * Current Nuclear plants can be converted to use it * It's actually cheaper than Nuclear * It doesn't require those big exclusion zones hmm.. I'm going to start a debate about Thorium to try to gather some good intelligence on it.. I need to know more..
Noface
Peter Gooley
Posted over 4 years ago
A conversation with GE: What are the best ideas for alternative energy management at home?
And is NOW is the time to have a real conversation about Thorium Reactors? There are huge advantages over Nuclear plants to using Thorium plants. My Web look into this brings up some very interesting information. Would be great to hear from those who REALLY know. How about you GE? Below is from Jack Lifton in a Resource Investor magazine in 2009. 1. Reactors using thorium in their fuel can be constructed so that they produce little or no products useful for explosive type (fission- or fusion-based) nuclear weapons. 2. Thorium reactors previously built and currently near operation, or in the design stage, produce far less radioactive waste material than the presently used uranium and/or plutonium based reactors. 3. Thorium is more abundant in the earth’s crust by a factor of between three and four than uranium, and coincidentally is also found in recoverable (as a byproduct) grades and quantities in the United States, Canada, Australia, the Republic of South Africa, and the People’s Republic of China (that is, the mainland). It has not yet been mined as a primary ore (more on this in a moment) but is rather always produced as a byproduct of either uranium or rare-earth metals primary production.