Thorium reactors. Yay or Nay ?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 21:03
VIEWED: 9163
PAGE 1 of 1

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 24, 2014 2:51 AM

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 24, 2014 7:35 AM

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, January 24, 2014 7:39 AM

A synopsis would be nice, as most folks aren't gonna spend 13 minutes listening to this guy.

500 words or less?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 24, 2014 7:41 AM

Thorium - available, clean,cheap, abundant, safe.

Any other questions ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, January 24, 2014 8:49 AM

Produces high-level long-lived radioactive waste, just like "regular" reactors.

ELVISCHRIST

Friday, January 24, 2014 11:13 AM

If you say it's "safe", ask yourself this:

Would you be comfortable with Iran having one? Or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Libya, or Egypt?

If not, then you don't really believe they're safe.

ELVISCHRIST

Friday, January 24, 2014 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

I guess I didn't realize these were the only possible choices offered to us.

So it's either thorium reactors or coal, and there's not even the slightest possibility of anything else?

By the way, if I say okay to thorium reactors, does that mean you'll agree to get rid of all the coal, oil, and LWR plants?

If I agree to put a thorium reactor in, say, Pennsylvania - can we agree to no coal or oil exploration, no fracking, no stuff like that?

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 24, 2014 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Produces high-level long-lived radioactive waste, just like "regular" reactors.

Though not with the dangers that comes with LWR, like high pressure , for one.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 24, 2014 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

I guess I didn't realize these were the only possible choices offered to us.

And now you do.

But hey,if you have any other suitable sources of energy, by all means, let's hear it.

Quote:

So it's either thorium reactors or coal, and there's not even the slightest possibility of anything else?

Well, Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry already, so there at least needs to be some sort of replacement of energy production lost, right ? Sure as hell isn't coming from the fine folks @ Solyndra !

Quote:

By the way, if I say okay to thorium reactors, does that mean you'll agree to get rid of all the coal, oil, and LWR plants?

If I agree to put a thorium reactor in, say, Pennsylvania - can we agree to no coal or oil exploration, no fracking, no stuff like that?

Maybe not NONE, but I'd think if the results warranted, we could get by with a lot fewer. And that would be a positive start, right ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SECOND

Friday, January 24, 2014 8:41 PM

"How thorium energy works

Unlike uranium, thorium can’t split to make a nuclear chain reaction — in scientific terms, it isn’t fissile. However, if it is bombarded by neutrons from a fuel that is fissile, like uranium-235 or plutonium-239, it’s converted to uranium-233, itself an excellent nuclear fuel. After the process begins, it’s self-sustaining — fission of uranium-233 turns more thorium nearby into the same nuclear fuel. There are complexities beyond the scope of this article, including the mechanics of molten-salt versus pressurized-water reactors in burning thorium, but the reaction described above is the main appeal of thorium, and its principal promise."

Thorium vs. uranium

Thorium is an appealing alternative to uranium to many countries. It is both more cheap and more abundant than uranium, whose price is expected to rise yet more as backlash from the Fukushima disaster dies down, according to Energy and Capital." - http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/17236/thorium-an-alternative-for-nucle
ar-energy.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Friday, January 24, 2014 8:55 PM

However, like all fission processes, it produces high-level radioactive byproducts. FWIW, I'm against fissioning of any sort for energy production. Even if reactors never have any accidents, they produce tons and tons (no exaggeration) of highly-radioactive nuclear waste. And we STILL haven't figure out what to do with it. Thorium reactors produce "less" waste, but we still haven't even figured out how to reprocess/recover thorium fuel. Unlike the PUREX process (plutonium/uranium extraction) the THOREX process is still theoretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Quote:
...'these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-ura
nium
But as a sink for government money and as an investment boomlet based on taxpayer subsidies, it looks great.

SECOND

Friday, January 24, 2014 9:05 PM

"Thorium Problems

Supporters of thorium believe it will be a clean-burning fuel source, but those concerned about the environment are not as convinced. Thorium supporters may have a hard time making an argument about thorium’s use as a clean fuel when renewable energy is making headway around the world.

On a practical level, despite thorium’s use in certain reactors, mass production of this new metal is another story. Scientists have pointed out the cost burden in producing thorium on a wide scale, and other analysts have noted that maximum generation of thorium would require technology that is years ahead of today’s advancements. Billions of dollars have already been geared towards thorium generation, with little to show regarding mass energy output.

And although it shows potential, thorium-based energy is very much in its theoretical stage." -- www.energyandcapital.com/articles/thorium-the-next-nuclear-fuel/4145

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

ELVISCHRIST

Friday, January 24, 2014 11:13 PM

I think AuRaptor has shown that he's not interested in having a serious discussion about this subject.

Even the stuff he supposedly posts as an effort to start a real discussion, he can't avoid trolling.

Lesson learned, and no further efforts need ever be made to engage subject. There is no intelligent life there.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

I think AuRaptor has shown that he's not interested in having a serious discussion about this subject.

Then you think wrong. I posted this specifically to get thoughts on the matter. I didn't prejudice the process by stating I was for or against.

Quote:

Even the stuff he supposedly posts as an effort to start a real discussion, he can't avoid trolling.

Such as ? My "Solyndra " comment ? How is that "trolling " ? Or my remarks about the coal industry and Obama ? HE made that very declaration himself. It's not ME who is making that claim. Seriously, enough w/ this bogus 'trolling' bullshit. Stand up and discuss, or get the fuck out of here.

Quote:

Lesson learned, and no further efforts need ever be made to engage subject. There is no intelligent life there.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:49 AM

He looks like he wants to kill James Bond.

ELVISCHRIST

Saturday, January 25, 2014 5:23 PM

We're told - constantly - by the right that solar and other renewables are "real" alternatives, because if they were, there'd be so many more of them installed already. (Never mind that Germany has installed so much solar capacity that they've permanently pulled about half their nuclear power plants offline.)

The argument seems to go "Well if it's such a great alternative, why isn't it everywhere? Since it's not the #1 source of power, it must be crap, and therefore can't compete!" (paraphrasing there)

So I have to ask - if thorium reactors are so good, why isn't everyone using them? Solar has more than doubled its installations in the last year, wind power installations are increasing steadily, but I've yet to see a thorium reactor in my backyard, so they must just be a fad.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

We're told - constantly - by the right that solar and other renewables are "real" alternatives, because if they were, there'd be so many more of them installed already. (Never mind that Germany has installed so much solar capacity that they've permanently pulled about half their nuclear power plants offline.)

The argument seems to go "Well if it's such a great alternative, why isn't it everywhere? Since it's not the #1 source of power, it must be crap, and therefore can't compete!" (paraphrasing there)

So I have to ask - if thorium reactors are so good, why isn't everyone using them? Solar has more than doubled its installations in the last year, wind power installations are increasing steadily, but I've yet to see a thorium reactor in my backyard, so they must just be a fad.

Doubling of solar or wind isn't all that impressive. When you have a minuscule number of installations to start with, and then double that number, it's still a minuscule total. One of the early tricks to advertising and b.s. spinning I learned was how to fudge numbers and stats to make them SEEM spectacular and amazing ( see what I did there ? ) is to make minor achievements seem like major ones.

I'm glad no Thorium reactors have magically sprung up in your back yard. That really makes the point that they must not have any value, what so ever. Excellent deduction.

C'mon.. THORium ? Doesn't that just sound cool and all Avengery ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:13 PM

Thank you for agreeing with me. It's true, if we doubled the number of thorium reactors providing power to this country, we'd have a truly miniscule number: zero.

You can try to fudge that number and bullshit us and spin it, but the truth stands: Wind and solar are currently providing infinitely more power in this country than thorium reactors are. What you see as the power of the future literally does not even exist in this country, yet you'll instantly dismiss power sources which DO exist and ARE working.

Spinning bullshit is your stock in trade.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:55 PM

The power generated by 2 thorium reactors would exceed all the solar/ wind power combined.
So, no. I wasn't agreeing with you.

And if you have axes to grind, as to the specific +'s and -'s of Thorium reactors, tell it to the guy from the video I posted. All I'm doing is laying the issue on the table.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:37 PM

Quote:
The power generated by 2 thorium reactors would exceed all the solar/ wind power combined.

Under what conditions? With what kind of investment? I'd have to say that this statement is pure, baseless speculation.

Quote:
And if you have axes to grind, as to the specific +'s and -'s of Thorium reactors, tell it to the guy from the video I posted.

Oh, wait... you mean YOU don't want to hear the +'s and -'s of thorium? You posted this online just to... what? Troll?
Huh! Whooda thunk?

Sounds like rappy has found hisself another hobby-horse. Yee ha!

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:40 PM

EC was taking, as are you, pointless personal shots at ME , as if I were some advocate for TR. I presented a video on the subject, and asked for comments. What I got was mindless rhetoric about the virtues of solar and wind ( both unreliable for a sustained power source ) and dismissal of TRs, out of hand.

Seems like the only one jerking anything off is you, Sig.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:17 PM

Quote:
I presented a video on the subject, and asked for comments

Which you apparently now don't want to hear.

Quote:
What I got was mindless rhetoric about the virtues of solar and wind

No, you got specific objections to thorium because of the production of tons (hundreds of tons) of radioactive contaminants, and the inability (so far) to reprocess thorium. I'd quote it for you but, hell, this is a short thread, just scroll up several posts, you'll find it if you're interested. And then you decided to make totally baseless comments of your own on the topic of solar and wind.

Quote:
( both unreliable for a sustained power source )

More baseless bloviating

Quote:
and dismissal of TRs, out of hand.

Again, not out of hand, very specific.

Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:26 PM

I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

So it's more of an "and" scenario? ;)

Quote:

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

But thorium reactors doing so ARE NOT "fact". It's mere speculation and conjecture, bullshit and spin as you call it. And according to you, even if 97% of all scientists agreed that it was real, it would still be a hoax.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:43 PM

More lies.

" according to you... ". Arriving at imaginary positions never once dtated by me.

So, are YOU saying thorium is hoax? That no working reactor has been made ? Asking for clarification.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:01 PM

Quote:

Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

No need to be choosy. It can be (and is) both.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, are YOU saying thorium is hoax? That no working reactor has been made ? Asking for clarification.

Is thorium a hoax? Unknown. What I *DO* know is this: there is not currently any commercial-grade thorium reactor in this country "producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale." (Note: I'm using your metrics for what you would rate as a successful power source when it comes to wind or solar and applying those same requirements to thorium-based MSRs)

You're trying to spin and BS your way into a false dichotomy. If you can prove that a working reactor has been made, ever, anywhere, it validates your point, you seem to think. Will you give wind or solar the same pass? Has wind or solar power ever been used, anywhere?

Asking for clarification of YOUR position.

STORYMARK

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

So it's more of an "and" scenario? ;)

Quote:

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

But thorium reactors doing so ARE NOT "fact". It's mere speculation and conjecture, bullshit and spin as you call it. And according to you, even if 97% of all scientists agreed that it was real, it would still be a hoax.

Clearly its a "fact" that wind and solar don't come close to producing as much energy as an imaginary scenario.

Cute how it keeps ignore the specific reservations in order to claim no one gives specifics...

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The power generated by 2 thorium reactors would exceed all the solar/ wind power combined.
So, no. I wasn't agreeing with you.

Theoretically. Of course, you have no way of knowing that, since you can't show me any place where two thorium reactors have come online and replaced or exceeded "all the solar / wind power combined."

I could as easily say that there are wind and solar power designs that can replace half a dozen nuclear reactors, as has already been done.

Difference being, mine isn't pure hypothetical or conjecture; it's fact. It's being done, and it's been done.

Quote:

And if you have axes to grind, as to the specific +'s and -'s of Thorium reactors, tell it to the guy from the video I posted. All I'm doing is laying the issue on the table.

You don't want to hear "+'s and -'s", though. You want to post your pluses and ignore any minuses that might get posted.

You keep trying to claim as "fact" some claims made by people with a vested interest in selling you something.

I've no axe to grind, I'm just asking questions and clarifying details.

Show me a commercial-grade thorium reactor in the United States that is currently providing more than half the amount of commercially-available energy as all of the solar and wind power in this country combined. That is your premise. You say two such reactors could outdo ALL of the wind/solar combined, so I'm asking for proof. I'll even handicap it for you. Show me just ONE such reactor that's currently operating at such capacity. Remember, since two would outdo ALL of the wind & solar in this country, show me just one that's providing 51% as much as all the wind and solar in this country.

I'll hang up and listen.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:26 PM

Safe to put EC & Storybook in the " nay " column?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

So it's more of an "and" scenario? ;)

Quote:

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

But thorium reactors doing so ARE NOT "fact". It's mere speculation and conjecture, bullshit and spin as you call it. And according to you, even if 97% of all scientists agreed that it was real, it would still be a hoax.

Clearly its a "fact" that wind and solar don't come close to producing as much energy as an imaginary scenario.

Cute how it keeps ignore the specific reservations in order to claim no one gives specifics...

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Exactly. The power that solar and wind are already producing in no way compares to what some theoretical design *might* produce, maybe, someday.

As I said, if even 97% of scientists agree that it would produce such power, it can still be labeled as a complete hoax, as we've seen time and time again from the right.

Meanwhile, AuRaptor - who claims to have been taught specifically how to spin and BS - is trying to play the victim card now, whining that people are taking personal shots at him for pointing out that he's trying to spin his BS. He plays the victim card so often I'm surprised he doesn't carry body chalk around with him.

ELVISCHRIST

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Safe to put EC & Storybook in the " nay " column?

Is there only "yay or nay"? Is there no "undecided" or "unconvinced" column?

You're either with us or against us, I guess.

That's a right-wing viewpoint at its core. Black or white, with or against, never any grays or in-between levels of nuance.

That you haven't utterly convinced me of the safety of thorium reactors by posting a single cheerleading video about them is your failing, not mine.

BTW, you've never said whether you were a "yay or nay" on the matter.

Afraid to take a stand on your own post?

AURAPTOR

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:54 PM

Wasn't trying to sell one or t'other . You wanna be " undecided "? Be my guest. It's a free country and all that, right?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, January 31, 2014 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

BTW, you've never said whether you were a "yay or nay" on the matter.

Afraid to take a stand on your own post?

And you got your answer.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 31, 2014 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

BTW, you've never said whether you were a "yay or nay" on the matter.

Afraid to take a stand on your own post?

And you got your answer.

Yes, he did. Thank you, Cpt Obvious .

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:00 PM

There ya go, Shiny - it is too afraid to answer its own question. And it even admits it.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:17 PM

Fear is what you have in yourself. I put the issue out there for discussion. It's your small, tribalistic mind that automatically kicks in with " friend or foe " attitude, with out dealing with the topic.

Like the idea of TR? Y or N . And why.

Too much for you to process, it seems.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:19 PM

Quote:
It's your small, tribalistic mind that automatically kicks in with "YAY or NAY " attitude, with out dealing with the topic.

Fixed it for you.

STORYMARK

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
It's your small, tribalistic mind that automatically kicks in with " YAY or NAY " attitude, with out dealing with the topic.
Fixed it for you.

Such a pathetic creature, demands a yes or no answer, refuses to even answer its own question, lies and says it has, all while pretends people haven't been discussing their reservations about it.

You have to wonder if it has some sort of mental defect that makes it incapable of processing the words it sees. Or if its just the biggest asshole ever. Maybe both.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Friday, January 31, 2014 11:42 PM

Wow. What cowards . I simply asked. I " demanded " nothing. When it was posed that " undecided " could be a 3rd option, I agreed , if that's how one wanted to reply.never lied anywhere in this thread, and it's funny to see you fall back to that tired , old line.

Y'all are just trolling because you don't want to deal with the topic.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:13 AM

STORYMARK

Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Good point.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Good point.

Childish, moronic point, actually.

@EC - I put up a video to be watched for the purpose of discussing what you saw, and whether it piqued your curiosity, or not, and why.

Sounds like you, as well as the others who have replied, have dismissed the mere CONCEPT, out of hand, simply because I'm the one who posted the video.

If not for me, is it because it's by those TEA Party lovin' folks @ TED talks ? Is that it ?

Or was it because the speaker is of middle eastern dissent, and you simply don't trust them types ?

Seriously, why the knee jerk vitriol ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:16 AM

I have categorically rejected fission power because of the fact that each reactor generates hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste per year. I don't think that I should have to respond to every single point by this fantasist. My answer is still NAY because he has not proposed a solution to this life-threatening problem. Got it?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:16 AM

Quote:
I have categorically rejected fission power because of the fact that each reactor generates hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste per year.

Where the heck are you getting your info ?

In today’s light water reactors, it takes 250 tones of natural uranium to produce 1 gigawatt of electricity for 1 year. 1 GW is about the average size of a typical, current generation, nuclear reactor. A 1GW light water reactor produces 35 tons of spent nuclear fuel which is highly radioactive for 10,000 to 1 million years. The USA currently has total electricity generating capacity of 1050 Gigawatts.

By comparison, a theoretical thorium based LFTR type reactor consumes 1 ton of cheap thorium and produces 1 ton of waste, most of which is radioactive for 10 years, the remaining for 300 years.

To replace all coal, gas and conventional nuclear generating capacity in the US (929GW) with LFTR reactors, would theoretically require 929 tons of thorium and produce 929 tons of waste per year. 929 tons of thorium is 82 cubic meters in volume.

So to replace all current US coal, gas and nuclear generation capacity requires just 3 standard 40’ shipping containers of thorium per year and produces the same amount of waste.

http://www.2112design.com/blog/lftr/

100's of tons ? Only if you're converting ALL the power required to run the US. I'm pretty sure that's not what is being imagined, by anyone.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

ELVISCHRIST

Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:46 AM

You're still trying to argue theoreticals as if they are facts.

1 ton of spent nuclear fuel ? 1 ton of nuclear waste.

1 ton of spent nuclear fuel + everything it touches and everything it's encased in and encapsulated within and buried with and contaminates = nuclear waste.

You may as well argue that Fukushima only created a few gallons of radioactive water.

And remember, what you're arguing for is THEORETICAL. It's only a theory, like the idea of people having anything to do with climate change. Right?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:07 AM

It's not entirely theoretical if they've already built smaller scale reactors, 40+ YEARS ago.

Unlike AGW, which constantly gets disproved, in the REAL world, over and over and over.

And in the example I gave, I compared apples to apples. Spent fuel to spent fuel. Sorry if that distorts your claim ( sorry, Siggy's claim ) that 1 reactor creates " 100's of tons of radio active waste per year ).

Talk about spin!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:26 AM

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

REAVERFAN

Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:33 AM

Sounds like a last ditch effort from the nuclear industry to stay relevant, at the cost of more irradiation.

Time to leave those fools behind.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Sounds like a last ditch effort from the nuclear industry to stay relevant, at the cost of more irradiation.

Time to leave those fools behind.

Really? Is that what it sounds like ? Using cheaper, more abundant material, not needing the high pressure common with other LTNRs, and producing far less waste, which takes far less time to cool down ?

IF anything, the nuclear industry has been keeping this technology down, not promoting it.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:49 AM

Quote:
Spent fuel to spent fuel.

Spent fuel= radioactive waste. By definition. It's spent, therefore it's waste, correct? And it's radioactive, correct? Therefore, Spent (waste) fuel (radioactive) = radioactive waste. High level radioactive waste, at that.

In fact spent fuel is THE (high level) radioactive waste problem that engineers and scientists are trying to solve from the use of nuclear power.

AFA thorium is concerned, I did look up the decay products of what goes on in a thorium cycle. No, it's not this guy's sales pitch. Did you know that thorium needs to be converted to uranium in order to produce energy, because thorium by itself doesn't heat up.

It's true! The thorium reactor isn't a thorium reactor, its a URANIUM reactor. In fact, you need URANIUM to start the reaction in the first place, so every thorium reactor starts out with thorium AND URANIUM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

The fuel cycle (thorium to uranium to.....) produces many of the same kinds of radioactive wastes as "regular" uranium fissioning, including cesium and strontium, the two waste products that are currently hemorrhaging from Fukushima. It's true that thorium produces less waste, but the waste is not negligible either. Also, it's hard to process out.

There are many technical problems with thorium reactors, not the least of which is that the fuel (uranium) produces a large amount of "hard" radiation (gamma rays) and the liquid salts are very corrosive to all parts of the reactor, especially at the very high temperatures at which they operate.

So, as far as I can tell- not particularly safe (yes, it operates and lower pressure but also at MUCH higher temps, and is wildly corrosive to boot), and still manages to create tons of radioactive waste material.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:37 PM

It's a different process , using a different fuel, which yields less waste and more power. Never said it was simple or easy. And yes, it STARTS with uranium, but only a small amount. After that, it DOES use Thorium. So, slow your roll there.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:04 PM

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:07 PM

Yes, it STARTS WITH uranium and thorium. After that, you feed in thorium, which is TURNED INTO URANIUM ON A CONTINUING BASIS, RIGHT THERE IN THE REACTOR. The point of thorium reactors is that they are BREEDER reactors, which means they make uranium right there in the reactor. Because a whole shitload of thorium is just that- a whole shitload of thorium. By itself, it doesn't fission enough to create enough heat to warm your hands, let alone power electricity generation. Maybe you missed that minor technical detail.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:11 PM

By itself ? So what ? It needs a small amount of ignition. Far less than the reactors we're using now.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SECOND

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:28 PM

What's all the excitement about? Physics finished with the Thorium reactor 40 years ago; engineering is what's slowing it down. You need to accept that progress will move forward at the slow and dignified pace of the average Chinese metallurgist. It will be decades before even 1% of China's electricity comes from Thorium, even though China needs it most.

The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?)

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:33 PM

Why is anyone even debating rappy? He gets off on provoking people with his ridiculously empty-headed provocation.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:37 PM

Thanks second. Very informative an interesting video.

If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss, I don't see the harm in trying to generate ( see what I did there ? ) some light hearted, honest dialogue here as well.

More info is always better.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:45 PM

Quote:
By itself ? So what ? It needs a small amount of ignition. Far less than the reactors we're using now.

Apparently you've failed to see the point. Let me try t make this absolutely clear... thorium reactors don't use thorium as the fuel, they use uranium. If thorium didn't continuously TURN INTO URANIUM (no, I don't mean a one-time addition to the mix, I mean turn in to uranium every single operating second) the reactor wouldn't produce enough heat to be worth anything.

Here, let me try to make it clear. I don't know what the actual percent of uranium is required in a thorium reactor, but for the sake of argument, let's say 5% (similar to today's reactors). So to start a thorium reactor, you add 5% of uranium to the reactor to get it going. But it's not like the uranium ignites the thorium and then fissions away and disappears. After that, the thorium continues to be turned into uranium. It's the uranium itself that does that. If you were to somehow sample the reactor mix a year from now, there would still be about 5% uranium in it. Five years later, still about 5% (according to Second's video, maybe 6%). 100 years after that still about 5% (or more, assuming the reactor was still operating). The original uranium has fissioned away, but has been replaced by more uranium which is being continuously generated in situ from thorium.

I listened to the video, not sure I'm going to listen again, but I'm not sure the speaker made it clear. He was so busy promoting thorium's up-sides that he didn't want to mention the down-sides.

1KIKI

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:18 PM

Second

I'm curious if you trust the words of a businessman promoting his business to be accurate and complete information.

SECOND

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss . . .

Another Google Tech Talk from Nov 2008. Twenty minutes into the talk is about actually built liquid fluoride reactors. In 1954. Yes, 1954. 60 years ago.
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:30 PM

Quote:

I'm curious if you trust the words of a businessman promoting his business to be accurate and complete information.

It's clear from the Google video of '11 that govt, w/ out much regard to what the science was saying, pushed ahead w/ the LMFBR ( liquid metal fast breeder reactors ) over the molten salt reactors. (MSR)

Seems govt, and not business, is what folks should have issues in trusting.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:34 PM

"Seems govt, and not business, is what folks should have issues in trusting."

You must have missed the part about the way business jumped right in.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:39 PM

Apparently the guy promoting thorium reactors in Second's video is basing his design on the separated-fuel or dual-liquid approach. The concept of a thorium reactors is that uranium turns thorium into uranium, and that the uranium is used as the fuel. But you can either do this by mixing the uranium and thorium together- which was the original operating design of the Oak Ridge reactor- or by separating the uranium and thorium.

The technical requirements of that separating "blanket" - that it be transparent to thermal neutrons, resistant to high levels of hard radiation, and resistant to corrosion of active high-temperature liquid salts - were such that the dual liquid design was rejected right from the start.

In addition, in order to make a thorium reactor practical, you need continuous fuel reprocessing. I don't know of ANY fuel reprocessing facility which has not seriously contaminated the environment.

Just as an aside, I think Japan has been working on a fast breeder plutonium reactor for decades, and they haven't gotten it to work.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:52 PM

Quote:

"Seems govt, and not business, is what folks should have issues in trusting."

You must have missed the part about the way business jumped right in.

That's what business does. Govt sets the rules, and then looks to business. MY point was that govt ignored what the science said, ignored the real world applications to the different reactors, and simply chose one over the other, probably because it yielded weapons grade material.

That was govt's doing, not business.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:57 PM

Quote:
MY point was that govt ignored what the science said, ignored the real world applications to the different reactors, and simply chose one over the other, probably because it yielded weapons grade material.

Science says that AGW is real. Since you are someone who rather routinely ignores what science says about real world applications, WTF do YOU care about it? You're like the typical businessman who ignores what science tells him when it's inconvenient.

Anyway, that's off-topic. My vote on thorium is still NAY.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Why is anyone even debating rappy? He gets off on provoking people with his ridiculously empty-headed provocation.

Please. Some here are trying to have a discussion.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:40 PM

When rappy appeals to "science", it's time to end the discussion, since rappy has no idea what science is and only cares to listen when it tells him something that fits into his ideolog.! (It's kinda like when rappy starts appealing to "facts", you know that factuality has left the room.)

ELVISCHRIST

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

It's not entirely theoretical if they've already built smaller scale reactors, 40+ YEARS ago.

Unlike AGW, which constantly gets disproved, in the REAL world, over and over and over.

And in the example I gave, I compared apples to apples. Spent fuel to spent fuel. Sorry if that distorts your claim ( sorry, Siggy's claim ) that 1 reactor creates " 100's of tons of radio active waste per year ).

Talk about spin!

How much radioactive waste do wind, solar, and hydro power produce?

ELVISCHRIST

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Thanks second. Very informative an interesting video.

If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss, I don't see the harm in trying to generate ( see what I did there ? ) some light hearted, honest dialogue here as well.

More info is always better.

Thing is, we've BEEN discussing it. And when we bring up points, or doubts, or concerns, you want to act like you're being attacked.

I do auditing for a living. I have other auditors alongside me, and a few of them have problems with the work, because of what I view as "confirmation bias" - they go into the audit looking to confirm and okay it. I go in looking at it as a challenge; I don't imagine people are trying to trick or screw me, I just think that they've likely made a mistake somewhere, and it's my challenge to find it before it gets away from us.

So I ask questions. I don't take someone's word for it. It's a skill set called "critical thinking."

What I've seen in this thread is that you're trying to present something as a false choice. You've presented something - a thorium reactor - and insinuated that it's clearly the best thing because it's cleaner than OTHER reactors (theoretically, at least). But it isn't true that our only choices are between thorium reactors and other reactors, or between thorium and coal, or oil, or gas. Our choices are between all viable energy sources.

You seem to have quite a vested interest in selling the rest of us on thorium reactors, even while claiming that you have no dog in the fight.

You say you asked for a discussion, but what you really hoped for was a cheerleading camp put on by a bunch of yes men. Sorry, but that's not what I do.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 3, 2014 12:15 AM

ELVIS, you must be one helluvan auditor.

I also review for a living, although I review reports of complex chemical analyses. It's my job to make sure the results are defensible in court and fully documented. Right now, we're working with a couple of procedures that haven't been fully vetted. So even though the data packages and reports have already been reviewed, it's my job to sit back and think... what might have been missed? I've caught some doozies- not because the analysts are incompetent or dishonest, but because the samples were unusual or the instrument malfunctioned in some subtle way.

I truly appreciate the chance to have discussed this topic. I had to go look up a lot of stuff, and along the way learned a lot more about breeder reactors than I ever thought possible! So thank you, ELVIS, SECOND and WIKIPEDIA for further info, and to rappy, for the original post.

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:29 AM

Thank you for the kind words, SignyM.

My last audit for a major multinational got a score of "perfect." 100%. No errors found. That's because I found 47 errors and ran every last one of them down and got them corrected.

I don't go into the job thinking people are incompetent or idiots; I go in thinking they're human, and that mistakes happen, and I view it as kind of a challenge. You ever see those games where you get two side-by-side pictures that look the same, but it says there are X number of differences, and asks you to find them all? I view the gig as being like that. It's more of a game - can I find the mistakes that people didn't even know they made, and correct them before the information goes upstream to the client?

If I get it wrong, though, nobody dies. Kind of not the same thing with nuclear reactors.

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:33 AM

And yes, I see potential problems with thorium reactors.

Remember that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is?"

The glowing reviews - often by people who admit they have zero background in nuclear engineering or science of any kind - give me the feeling someone is trying to sell me a polished turd.

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:42 AM

signym

But what we didn't get in all the promotion, and what I would have appreciated, is a knowledgeable discussion of the pitfalls.

For example, there's the idea you can 'flush' a bad situation, sotto voce 'so it wouldn't be like Fukushima'. Weren't control rods supposed to be the exact same handy-dandy built-in failsafe? And how did that work out? And what of a 'flushed' reactor? How DO you recover the core remnants?

Then there's the idea that you can 'always' burn off uranium from one reactor in another should you need to decommission it. But in the process of 'burning it off' you inevitably create more. They're breeder reactors after all, and they HAVE to create fissile uranium in order to function. So you never QUITE burn it off, you only delay the inevitable load of uranium that will eventually need to be disposed of.

Is there such a thing as nuclear runaway should the coolant fail? If you're depending on 'slow' 'thermal' neutrons, surely heat is a factor.

And these are the unanswered questions of a layman thought up under 30 seconds.

Maybe we should look up the opinions of scientists in the field, and not salesmen from companies looking for investors and markets (or self-important ignoramuses like rappy).

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 3, 2014 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Thanks second. Very informative an interesting video.

If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss, I don't see the harm in trying to generate ( see what I did there ? ) some light hearted, honest dialogue here as well.

More info is always better.

Thing is, we've BEEN discussing it. And when we bring up points, or doubts, or concerns, you want to act like you're being attacked.

Only because I WAS being attacked and accused of having motives which weren't mine in the first place.

Quote:

I do auditing for a living. I have other auditors alongside me, and a few of them have problems with the work, because of what I view as "confirmation bias" - they go into the audit looking to confirm and okay it. I go in looking at it as a challenge; I don't imagine people are trying to trick or screw me, I just think that they've likely made a mistake somewhere, and it's my challenge to find it before it gets away from us.

Yeah, not really caring about what you do for a living, or how you see your job.

Quote:

So I ask questions. I don't take someone's word for it. It's a skill set called "critical thinking."
Yay! That's good!

Quote:

What I've seen in this thread is that you're trying to present something as a false choice. You've presented something - a thorium reactor - and insinuated that it's clearly the best thing because it's cleaner than OTHER reactors (theoretically, at least). But it isn't true that our only choices are between thorium reactors and other reactors, or between thorium and coal, or oil, or gas. Our choices are between all viable energy sources.

First of all, I'm only bringing the issue for discussion. The TEDxTalks vid was one I found interesting, and compelling. second's Google Tech video actually expounded on the TedxTalks video.

Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments.

I never once stated, suggested or hinted, in the least, that our ONLY choices were as you claimed. But the simple fact is, as was demonstrated in the Google Tech video, was that solar power isn't as reliable or economical as other forms of energy.

Quote:

You seem to have quite a vested interest in selling the rest of us on thorium reactors, even while claiming that you have no dog in the fight.

That's entirely in your head. I have only 1 sole vested interest, and that's what's best for humanity.

Quote:

You say you asked for a discussion, but what you really hoped for was a cheerleading camp put on by a bunch of yes men. Sorry, but that's not what I do.

Again, that's YOUR own personal bias being projected into the discussion.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 3:20 AM

"Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments."

Quotes, cites, links.

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 3, 2014 3:30 AM

Did you even watch the videos ?

Or, if you like to read a lot, here are some other articles on the topic...

Quote:
Thorium and MSRs in the media

Is there a safer future for nuclear? Dr Geoff Parks, Cambridge University, June 2012

Safer nuclear – let the thorium debate begin, SmartPlanet, May 2012

New Life for Forgotten Fuel, FT Magazine, September 2011

The Nuclear Renaissance?, BBC Business Daily, September 2011

Thor Forges Safer Nuclear Power, The Sunday Times (PDF 1.6 Mb)

Thorium: the Element that Could Power our Future, Wired.co.uk, September 2011

Safer nuclear does exist, The Telegraph, August 2011

Why thorium nuclear power shouldn’t be written off, Bryony Worthington, The Guardian, July 2011

Uranium is so last century – enter thorium, the green nuke, Wired, December 2009

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/thorium/

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 3:45 AM

They were both sales pitches. And one guy wasn't even a scientist.

So, do you have those references or not?

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, February 3, 2014 4:09 AM

So who do you propose will build these reactors, if the industry has been trying to quash them?

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 4:22 AM

Thorium and MSRs in the media http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/thorium/
Is there a safer future for nuclear? Dr Geoff Parks, Cambridge University, June 2012

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/thorium/

all referenced to The Weinberg Foundation - or, as they bill themselves "Established in September 2011, the Weinberg Foundation is a UK-based not-for-profit organisation dedicated to advancing the research, development and deployment of safe, clean and affordable nuclear energy technologies to combat climate change and underpin sustainable development for the world. The Foundation operates out of Somerset House in central London."

Safe nuclear: Let the thorium debate begin By Mark Halper where Mark Halper quotes an expert named ... Mark Halper, who is not a scientist

New Life for Forgotten Fuel, FT Magazine, September 2011
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/52d7bde6-e401-11e0-bc4e-00144feabdc0.html#ix
zz2sCxJGZQh

“Not all nuclear power is equal. Thorium is inherently safer,” says Baroness Bryony Worthington, the Labour peer and campaigner for climate change. “It offers very low-cost, sustainable, safe forms of nuclear power.”

Baroness Worthington is patron of the Weinberg Foundation ...

The Nuclear Renaissance?, BBC Business Daily, September 2011
quotes ... Baroness Bryony Worthington and Soresen, a businessman promoting his business of thorium reactors

Thor Forges Safer Nuclear Power, The Sunday Times (PDF 1.6 Mb)
not available without paid subscription

Thorium: the Element that Could Power our Future, Wired.co.uk, September 2011
quotes Soresen and refers to Baroness Bryony Worthington

Safer nuclear does exist, The Telegraph, August 2011
not available in english

Why thorium nuclear power shouldn’t be written off, Bryony Worthington, The Guardian, July 2011
written by ... Bryony Worthington

Uranium is so last century – enter thorium, the green nuke, Wired, December 2009
heavily quotes ... Sorensen

You're having the same difficulty as you do with global warming ... you don't seem to know what science is.

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 3, 2014 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
They were both sales pitches. And one guy wasn't even a scientist.

So, do you have those references or not?

In the video. Which quotes Dr Weinberg, who worked on the reactor @ Oakridge labs.

There's my reference.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 3, 2014 4:28 AM

Quote:
You're having the same difficulty as you do with global warming ... you don't seem to know what science is.

Not in the least. You're the one who ignores what's been presented, prolly because it debunks your preconceived views on the matter. Or because it's ME who is posting it.

I know full well what 'science' is. Do you ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 4:31 AM

Well, when I ask for scientific references and you post salesmen and Baronesses, it does make me wonder.

So, care to try again?

"Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments."

quotes, cites, links

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 3, 2014 4:56 AM

No. Watch the gorram video. Towards the end, Weinberg is quoted. That's all you're getting from me. If you think that's insufficient, fine. I don't give 2 flips. Declare Thorium reactors the worst form of energy imaginable. I'm not here to convince you or anyone.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Monday, February 3, 2014 6:48 AM

Quote:
Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments.

Rappy, you win the award for making me spew coffee on my keyboard!

Because, seeing as there was only one scientist that I know of who BUILT the thorium reactor... and he's DEAD NOW... it's a little difficult to get up-to-date opinions on the topic!

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, February 3, 2014 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I never once stated, suggested or hinted, in the least, that our ONLY choices were as you claimed. But the simple fact is, as was demonstrated in the Google Tech video, was that solar power isn't as reliable or economical as other forms of energy.

Ummmmmm, yeah, you really kinda did. Very early in this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

I guess I didn't realize these were the only possible choices offered to us.

And now you do.

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, February 3, 2014 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No. Watch the gorram video. Towards the end, Weinberg is quoted. That's all you're getting from me. If you think that's insufficient, fine. I don't give 2 flips. Declare Thorium reactors the worst form of energy imaginable. I'm not here to convince you or anyone.

Again, playing the victim card and going to extremes. I'm beginning to suspect you're not actually an adult.

Because someone asked you a question - a VALID question - you cry out that you're being attacked just for being sweet, harmless, cuddly little old you, and then you imply that anyone who questions you in any way must believe that thorium reactors are the antichrist, the worst thing ever. No middle ground, no room for discussion or debate, just the "with us or against us" mentality that ever more clearly has become THE dominant defining characteristic of right-wing authoritarians.

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, February 3, 2014 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments.
Rappy, you win the award for making me spew coffee on my keyboard!

Because, seeing as there was only one scientist that I know of who BUILT the thorium reactor... and he's DEAD NOW... it's a little difficult to get up-to-date opinions on the topic!

One guy who partook in building such a thing once upon a time (and it was then discarded, apparently) = "many scientist"...

I'm not sure how you can have many of a singular person. Maybe the reactor cloned him?

"Many scientists" becomes, when pressed for sources and details, ONE scientist, long dead.

Do you see why you might have a perceived credibility gap?

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, January 31, 2023 9:03 PM

Space Exploration

A hybrid fission/fusion reactor could be the best way to get through the ice on Europa

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-hybrid-fissionfusion-reactor-ice-europa.
html