G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board » Science, Climate, and Winter is Coming » Archive 2012 - 2018 » Archive through July 05, 2013 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 - 09:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I saw a story on that ITER reactor not long ago. The headline made it sound like there was a big breakthrough in fusion technology. Turns out they are just hyping the continued building of a hugely expensive theoretical project. The story was a real let down IMO. One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age of clean, cheap energy

I'm not clear if this project is supposed to actually produce energy (with actual power lines coming out of the facility) or simply prove that you can produce a net positive amount of energy. If that's the cost of a project to simply push past the break even point, I'm not clear how this will be the cheap energy being promised. Still, a fairly expensive, but clean, safe, reliable energy source isn't a bad thing. It does seem that fusion energy is on a constant rolling few decades away from reality. I am convinced that it will never deliver as promised. I wonder if they can deliver at all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, June 02, 2013 - 10:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

ITER is to prove it can be done.

I don't even think it has any plans for converting the Photon output to electricity, but I could be wrong.

Simply building an experimental reactor would be far cheaper, ( still really expensive, compared to a "simple" Thorium Nuclear reactor ) but this is a multinational boon for science budgets. The HQ will be quite luxurious and suitable for wonderful conferences on Clean Energy, not too far by train from really good shopping.

Now, I have doubts as to if they will ever get a Tokamak type reactor to hit break even. But they insist it's just a matter of scale, and if they pour enough money into it, and make it big enough, it will work. If I was buying stock in a new energy company, I'd go with one using Busard's ideas, not the Russian's.

But I could be wrong. This could be it, the breakthrough we've been promised all my life.

IF you can make a system that works, makes more power than you put in, you have really got something. Unlike a 1940's or 50's Fission pile, if things go wonky, you just turn off the fuel feed, and it all stops. If it loses confinement, you might melt a billion dollars worth of pipe and wire, but it won't do a "China Syndrome", ever, since it's only under very special conditions that a reaction can happen. Once you lose the density and energy levels, the "fire" goes out. That doesn't mean you can't make a mildly radioactive mess in a mega disaster, since the neutron flux not used to convert Lithium fuel makes what it touches radioactive, but it's not the heavy metal badness of Plutonium.

And they whole thing is supposed to run on sea water. ( of course, first you have to distill it, sort out the "heavy" water and then use electrolysis to split it into Deuterium rich Hydrogen gas and Oxygen. All are energy hog processes )

Also, even though the cost of building a working reactor may be high, unlike a NG, coal, or Oil burning plant, which takes a constant stream of railroad cars, or a dedicated big pipe, to fuel every day, A fusion plant can be refueled by a guy on a moped with a 5 gallon jug bungeed to the seat. Probably a couple of times a week. He won't need a hazmat suit either. Heavy Water is harmless, and you could even drink it and smuggle it internally across borders. ( there's a Tom Clancy plot for ya! )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geedee
Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 06:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

This one is for Pwnzor.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 11:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://openflights.org/data.html#route

It's obviously a conspiracy that all these "supposed airliners/drones/chemtrail makers" fly criss crossing routes over the most populous and developed areas, while almost none fly between places with no one living there.....

Unless, and I know this is crazy talk, they are passenger and freight carrying planes going between population centers using a very obsolete air route system developed back when DC3's had the range to go from New York City to Chicago without refueling, and kept in place by a moribund and ineffective FAA ( a Federal agency! ) that seems incapable of updating it's systems in a timely and logical manner.

Yeah, like that's what's happening, sure it is!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pwnzor
Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 04:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I can't wait to watch that when I get home... firewall at work won't let me do it!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2013 - 07:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-space -asteroid-idUSBRE94U12G20130608

Swing and a miss!

""There is theoretically a collision possible between asteroids and planet Earth,"

Yes, and the probability is 1.

It's happened before, it WILL happen again. It's not a question of if, but when. ( if you run through the rain long enough, you get wet. )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pwnzor
Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2013 - 09:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Finally got to watch that video.

What can I say, my wife laughed even harder at it than I did.

Some moron, living in a palace on a mountaintop, with more money than he knows what to do with... sitting there making videos and spouting completely ignorant statements about "waves in the atmosphere" and "square clouds that we see every day".

Moron, idiot, buffoon at worst, charlatan at best.

Keep 'em coming Geedee! Try and find something a bit fresher please, the last dozen or so just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. Got anything with aliens in it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cataract2
Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2013 - 01:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)





















Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2013 - 02:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


tshirt
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2013 - 10:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/06/09/states-consider -fees-for-hybrids-to-recoup-loss-of-gasoline-taxes /

This is, alas, typical of good intentions having bad results, for someone.

The State taxes a product.
Then urges people to use less. ( multiple ways to do that, one of them being taxing it more )
Then finds tax revenue goes down, because, gasp! people use less like you told them.
Then, typically, tries to make up the shortfall by either raising taxes, ( which usually causes less consumption )
or, by tax punishing the people who used less like you told them.

I really wish you could counter sue for stupidity, but no legislature on earth would allow that, because it would interfere with the level of daily dumbness. Also it would impose a responsibility on the irresponsible.

In any event, If I was told they were going to fine me for doing as I was told, I would loudly suggest that they have sexual relations with themselves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geedee
Posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 - 05:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"Moron, idiot, buffoon at worst, charlatan at best."

Best not to bottle it up
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 - 08:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/wh at-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

We might one day find ourselves looking back on the crazy weather of the 2010s with a deep yearning for those halcyon days.

Heck, yeah! Remember when it was warmer? When we had harvests? Before Soylent Green?

They discuss how "those dismissive of climate-change concerns" cherry pick the start & end dates..... Pot, black.

I do admire the lovely phrasing. It moves from the ever popular nazi inference ( "denier" ) to a softer, yet still quite evil, uncaring despoiler of nature. Nicely done! No wonder the NYT did such a great job of shilling for and covering up the mass murders of Stalin. They got some talent. ( btw, the NYT's policy still seems to be to support totalitarian mass murderers. Way to stay consistent! )

BTW, that's 15 years now. 15 years of consistent, continuous lies about it being the warmest year on record. Way to Go!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 - 08:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

One of the more interesting ( to me, you probably don't care ) weather phenoms is "wonder winds".

Wonder winds are rare thing, that happens at a certain time & condition, as the wind dies near sunset, when a valley, pumping thermals up the downwind slopes, suddenly stops making thermals ( bubbles of rising hot air... ) and becomes a still stratified pond of air. As the prevailing wind dies out, the air in the valley rises, as a single mass, and air rushes down both sides of the valley to take it's place.

It doesn't happen all the time, it requires just right patterns of heating, wind, and valley shape. But when it does, a glider can soar upward, far away from slopes ( where you find lift ) and not needing to turn and chase thermals. ( which, in the North East, tend to be small & rowdy ) You can just sail up down & across the valley, sometimes getting more than 3 times the height of the surrounding ridges. When the Wonder wind dies, as the sun sets, you lose the wide area lift, and descend. Day over.

But. When the "wonders" start, the take off area on the ridge where Hang Gliders & Paragliders take off, has wind conditions that go from calm, ( difficult but possible to take off ) to a swift downhill, tail wind. ( nigh impossible to take off. ) So the timing to take off is critical. Too soon, and you "sled run" down to the valley floor. Too late, and you can't fly.

Naturally, all this is invisible. It's on such a small scale, both in size, and duration, that it's never going to be more than a blip on any weather map. ( though in the Finger Lake region of NY, a wonder can cover many square miles. )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 08:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024035/a rticle

"Medieval Irish chronicles reveal persistent volcanic forcing of severe winter cold events, 431–1649 CE"

http://news.yahoo.com/north-america-viking-voyage- discovered-131333241.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 10:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Experienced those wind reversals many an evening while fishing off the end of the dock at Chautauqua Lake, NY.

Neat to learn the mechanism behind the phenomenon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2013 - 09:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

A fine actor and non-scientist/economist urges Dictatorial action to save the Planet from Coal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/06/11/ Redford-Wants-Obama-To-Bypass-Congress-On-Coal

I thought he was great in "3 Days Of The Condor". I guess he forgot about what happens when those who bypass the legislature rule illegally. Like in the movie where he was pursued by murderous thugs of the CIA.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/11 /WH-Prepares-To-Push-Climate-Change-Legislation

Obama would hardly have a scientific leg to stand on if he blocked Keystone; his own State Department acknowledged in March that the pipeline would not significantly increase oil sands production or greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental activist are ignoring that report, pushing Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to block the pipeline. Rule as Gods. ( there, fixed it for them. )

Well, China, leaders of the planet in mass murder, copyright violation, industrial espionage, hostile hacking attacks, and religious persecution, actually gets something right. For their own reasons, but, still, how Ironic.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/11 /exclusive-China-rebuttal-climate-change

Blake, from a lakeside perspective, you'd get moderate wind during the day, occasional waterspouts or dust devils, ( thermals ) then a quiet time as the sunsets, then the winds rushing toward the lake from the surrounding hills. Looked at in 3 dimensions, you have these air avalanches running down the hills to lift/fill in under the warm air in the valley.

The sky is full of enormous forces as the sun heats the planet unevenly, the rotation of the planet turns the winds at different altitudes, and friction slows the air near the surface.

For many sailplane pilots the Grail is Wave lift, where laminar flow and the terrain produce a feedback effect.

http://www.ssa.org/GliderLiftSources

The Lenticular clouds produced by waves are often mistaken for flying saucers. If you see one fairly close up you see the cloud forms at the leading edge as the moisture in the air condenses as it hits the magic altitude & temperature. Then disappears as it rushes down the trailing edge. The air near them is smooth, very fast, and near laminar.

The rotors in the diagram at the bottom of the page can be, and often are, powerful enough to rip a normal airplane apart. Sometimes they have their own condensation cloud, called a roll cloud, that also form & dissipate, but are violently turbulent and very powerful. You can clearly see the rotation in a roll cloud. It's scary. Often, there is no cloud in the rotor and it's considered clear air turbulence. One ripped the tail off a B-52, that only landed because of high skill and talent on the crew's part.



Longer AF report.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 07:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/350559/c alif-utility-shuts-down-san-onofre-nuclear-power-p lant-greg-pollowitz

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=14154

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=14212

“Government energy suppression has cost the American people the greatest windfall of prosperity ever offered to any civilization in human history.

“Had the government not suppressed the development of nuclear power, our national gross domestic product would be more than double its current value and the standard of living of our people – especially the poor and the middle classes – would would be twice as high as it is today.

“Instead, we find our country with very serious economic problems, with a large part of our productive industries lost abroad, and with our landscape increasingly littered with windmills, whbich are little more than false advertising propaganda for an economically useless technology”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/tougher-r egulations-seen-from-obama-change-in-carbon-cost.h tml

“As we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction they could go but up,” Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton.

Public Comment

Even supporters questioned the way the administration slipped the policy out without first opening it for public comment. The change was buried in an afternoon announcement on May 31 about efficiency standards for microwave ovens, a rule not seen as groundbreaking.

“This is a very strange way to make policy about something this important,” Frank Ackerman, an economist at Tufts University who published a book about the economics of global warming, said in an interview. The Obama administration “hasn’t always leveled with us about what is happening behind closed doors.”


Worse & Worse? I suppose that 15 years of not warming and a growing realization that the Greens lie to us every year is worse for you.

I guess Redford gets his way. Obama Rules.

Kings rule. Tyrants Rule. Presidents lead.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 07:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

In case you missed the point, Obama just raised your taxes.

Raised the cost of everything.

Gasoline, electricity, food, Breathing.

I'm curious when Carbon Footprint will be a calculation the IRS uses to determine your life worth for Health Insurance Purposes. I expect them to leak your level of Ecological Evil to political opponents months before that.

"Your Air Conditioner is only 11 Seer? Too bad, sir, that means your son doesn't qualify for that Kidney Transplant. Such a shame. Says here you drive a Motorcycle? Electric? No? Well, that's not good. So much for that back surgery."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 14, 2013 - 10:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


ice sheets
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, June 14, 2013 - 07:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mikexlr650
Posted on Friday, June 14, 2013 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

So if that vid is even somewhat correct why are regular reactors built at all? Seems a no brainer, but then again anything involving government and brains...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 01:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The goal in the 1940's & 50's was Plutonium production. Now that the perceived need for lots of Plutonium is far less, the current systems are obsolete.

All those used fuel rods in pools scattered around the place are supposed to have been reprocessed to extract the useful stuff, and the Uranium turned around for re fueling, but we never built the full scale reprocessing facilities, for purely political reasons.

Congress mandated the system, then never paid for the plant. Plus delays at the storage facility. ( Yucca Mt. ) Though if you think Uranium Pressurized Water reactors are a dead end, ( and there's good argument for that ) then we may actually be better off not blowing that money before, and using the spent fuel ina more efficient way. ( which still is going to require building reprocessing facilities, but now, they'll be safer and better. )

Like the fellow in the video above, I'm not a big fan of any system that uses molten metal as a coolant, and Liquid Sodium is pretty high on my list of things not to be near. Helium in a primary loop is so much less panic inducing when it sprays out a broken pipe.

You have to understand that other than a beefing up of containment structure and back up systems, the plants being built today are little different in concept and design than those of the early 50's.

The fast breeder programs would have given us a viable fuel cycle, but it looks like Thorium is a better solution with far less toxic side effects. I do note that anything, any process that has gaseous Fluorine involved makes me want to stay upwind. That includes Microprocessor plants and certain chemical plants. OTOH having Fluorine only in a closed loop side structure as part of the fuel conditioning system isn't as scary as living near a fertilizer plant.

Thorium molten salt reactors might not be the perfect setup. Looks like it'd be worth seeing the cost benefit with a full scale pilot plant. We know the easy part, the reactor and coolant/power systems work, we've done that. You just need to test the continuous fuel reprocessing systems, but that can actually be done while running the place without affecting safety or power production all that much.

I don't have a spare billion, or I'd order one for my imaginary ranch with runway and hangars for my imaginary warbird collection.

But to put it in perspective, the cost to build one is roughly what's been lost in 3 years to Wind and solar companies funded by taxpayer dollars, that went broke. ( I'll skip the political angle on that one )

But there are a lot of good ideas to spend tax dollars on, and it's to be expected I'd disagree with most of it.

I also suspect that politically, Nuclear is a dirty word, and Fusion promises The Future! and Fusion promises a Politician a long lasting jobs project with lots of funding.

Here's a project I'm less enthusiastic about, but has potential. A touch dull and chock full of moderately well explained physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhKB-VxJWpg
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 11:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Good video Aesquire. It was worth 2 hours. It would be nice to see a debate on this topic (the video was of course one sided). I agree that our choice of reactor type in the US had to do much with weapons technology.

One thing that is stuck in my mind though, he mentioned that France had built a LFTR (among a few others) and have shut it down. I'm curious what the reasons for shutting it down. It sounds like it solves many of the current issues with nuclear power.

A bit off this topic, I had the opportunity to visit a wind turbine manufacturing plant this week. The person I was talking to did say that they are completely dependent on government subsidies, with no end to that in sight.

Even more off topic, the wind turbine plant clearly did things that at least give the appearance of being true believers in green energy. I'm not saying they are, or are not, but they did some very visible things that are not typical and would be considered "green". One of these things was a large amount of front row parking spaces for "energy efficient vehicles". What was strikingly missing was charging stations for electric vehicles. I would have thought that true believers in green electricity would be all for promoting vehicles that use their own product of green electricity. Perhaps even they are more pragmatic than that though. To be perfectly honest, some of the things they did just make sense for any industrial building. They just went an extra mile to point many of these features out. So if the folks in the green electricity industry aren't doing their part to make EVs a reality, who is going to (other than politicians of course)?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 12:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The inescapable mathematical fact is you can't have electric cars in any numbers without increasing the electric generation capacity.

pick a unit, how about ergs?

If X ergs goes into gas for cars, and y goes into electric power, then converting to electric cars equals
(x + x*.3) + y = required power generation.

You have 2 choices. Build more power plants.

Or, if you just burn the gasoline in generators to recharge the cars, you lose even more power to conversion inefficiency, so we have to import even more oil.

If you're going to build more power plants, and you have no choice, for a variety of reasons, you have to choose the most efficient, least destructive to the planet, way to make electric power.

You have no choice, since old power plants are going to be shut down as they become unprofitable with their aging hardware and expensive pollution controls. Newer plants that are on the current administrations hit list are going to be regulated out of existence. Don't forget, Obama promised no new coal plants by simply regulating them with impossible to meet rules.

The eco-warriors are already protesting new solar and wind farms, because of how much area they take and the destruction of wildlife or precious soil types.

If I'm looking at technology to save us, ( and I am ) then one that burns up and renders harmless and safer the waste the old generation of nuclear power plants has in storage seems a good idea. Win-win.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 09:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Here's a much shorter argument for Thorium reactors.

2 hours gives you a better view, but 10 min. gives you the idea without being too boring. ( if you aren't enthusiastic, tech stuff is boring )



Now, this is one sided, but I haven't heard any rebuttals other than a reflexive "nuclear bad".

Myself, if you figure out a way to turn pigeon droppings into 73 cents a gallon premium gasoline, I'm going to be a bit more tolerant of the flying rats crapping on my car.

I don't care where the power comes from, as long as we don't do it too stupid. We're doing it real stupid today.

On a political note, those most concerned with a Green Planet are people who are rich enough to not worry about paying for their lifestyle.

Poor people live in toxic hells because they can't afford to support any lifestyle without dirty power.

Even fewer will live to get rich because we are burning food.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 09:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Madduck
Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 12:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Thorium power has been analysed since the 50's. It has one critical flaw. No possible production of nuclear weapons. Any person telling you they want nuclear for peaceful use and is not talking thorium is lying.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 06:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Sifo, Why did france shut down it's Thorium plant?

A couple of reasons. In no order...

They didn't have the production facilities built for Thorium reprocessing, but did for Uranium. Even in France, there is a strong Greenie political force desiring a return to pre-industrial lifestyle. ( meaning 3+ billion dead, and the rest of the planet slaves, in dire poverty, or kings ruling with an iron fist and a monopoly on power. But that's not important to a Greenie. ) Getting the funding for a whole new set of expensive factories in a slowly going broke Social Democracy is not going to happen.

There is a lot of investment in Uranium Reactors. Those invested in that tech don't need competition, and would lobby hard to block Thorium. Or Fusion, if it wasn't a dream of Tomorrow.

The "Uranium lobby" in France knows it's fighting hard against the anti-nuke folk, who are amply funded and tied into the German Greens, etc. Think of them as the Communists with less sense, more righteousness, and better ties to V Putin than they realize.

So it's not a surprise that the LFTR in France was dropped. But they are still looking at this tech.

http://www.french-news-online.com/wordpress/?tag=l ftr-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor#axzz2X4ozJmQF

Have to click on title link to get to article.

Dr. Joe Bonometti's Google Tech talk on the subject, ( at the above website ) while 55 minutes long, addresses the advantages fairly well. ( or, if not that interested, go for the Sorensen Video above from last Sat. )

I'm not a rabid Thorium fan, but am perfectly willing to try it. Also Pebble bed reactors ( Uranium ) which will also need the Uranium reactor waste recycling system we still don't have built, or show any sign of doing so.

It is one thing to design any fission reactor at the edges of the power/weight ratio as used in US Submarines or the slightly less stressed ones used in Carriers. This is military hardware, and to win, your gear ( any kind, Planes, subs, missiles ) has to have the most power in the smallest possible space. Your stuff has to be able to be stressed right to the point of breaking, and it will be.

It's another to design reactors for use as a public utility. The designs will have dedicated people watching them 24/7, sure, just like on a Carrier. But not under military discipline or stress levels. People make mistakes, and if the design is not "fail safe", it's crazy. If a malfunction can cause a large bad thing to happen, then you have to design that failure mode out.

Fail Safe.
In bike terms, your new high tech computerized throttle in your new Fly By Wire Aprilla MAGnifico had better croak with the bike at idle, not at full throttle.


A way to do that with any reactor is to use Helium as a primary coolant. ( the stuff that runs through the reactor, cooling it and transferring it's heat to water, in a big boiler outside the reactor. ) Helium picks up very little radiation, and if it leaks, will fairly harmlessly float up through the atmosphere, and be blown away from the Earth in the solar wind. Radioactive steam, OTOH, does not. It condenses, and drifts, and dribbles.

In any event the reactor core must be designed to take fairly high temperatures, far higher than used for power generation, so when the coolant leaks out, the darned thing won't melt. You want it to sit there and cool off and be safe while you fix the problems. ( earthquake, Tsunami, fire etc. ) That technology is available in Pebble Bed reactor where...

Instead of the chemically twitchy Uranium alloy pellets being shoved down tubes, that have water circulated around them, and are subject to thermal shock, expansion/contraction, neutron decay of physical structure and chemical composition, etc. etc.

You Mold them into small stainless steel balls. Then pour them into a stainless pressure vessel. It has a big grate & trap door at the bottom, to dump the pebbles for refueling or in emergency, pipes for coolant, and control rods.

The balls are sized to hold the correct geometry for neutron flux, and the cooling fluid flows through the pile of pebbles.

Pipe breaks, power goes out, whatever, it should just sit there and be slowly cooling.

The materials, geometries, and sizes must be carefully chosen, but we can make reactors that are safe to haul around on Trailers, and plug right into an existing power plants water pumps and turbines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

No matter WHAT alt energy you want to use, there will be a large capital cost. Beyond the "reactors" themselves, no matter what kind. Uranium, Thorium, Boron Fusion, Deuterium/Tritium Fusion, all will need a large industrial & chemical infrastructure to support.

So do Windmills, Solar panels, or the Orbital Solar I am a rabid fan of. ( for many reasons, happy to preach expound on that one )

http://www.french-news-online.com/wordpress/?p=705 3#axzz2X4ozJmQF
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 06:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Correction, ceramic balls, not steel. my bad.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Friday, July 05, 2013 - 09:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I just saw a tv show title.

"Can eating insects save the world?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01599yk

Not the crazed Human Hatred I was expecting from that title. But, I admit, despite having eaten chocolate covered ants, ( not so great ) and fried roaches, ( like black greasy popcorn, fairly tasty, at a Chinese Restaurant in Chicago ) and of course, a variety of fresh bugs while riding various machines, I'm not a fan of the food group.

While I enjoyed the cgi, I'm still a bit disturbed by the popularity of this one.

http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration