/sci/ - Science & Math

To be honest, I'd rather invest my money in fusion technology.

Although this stuff is good, people won't ever completely accept it, therefore influencing politicians and therefore making any further progress impossible.

Sad, isn't it? This stuff is always more psychology than anything else. Just like the stock market.

Why are we not building this? Because envirofascists. IFR was discontinuited in 94 :/

>>3893029
>people won't ever completely accept it

What if nuclear gets better PR?

>>3893073

That would change a lot of things. Any ideas on how to get started on that?

>Why are we not building this?
Because Americans.

>>3893415
THORIUM! IN LIQUID FLUORIDE SALT REACTORS!
CANNOT MELTDOWN THANKS TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
YOU CAN HOLD A LIFETIME SUPPLY OF ENERGY IN A GOLDBALL-SIZED LUMP OF THORIUM
INCREDIBLY HARD TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM THIS STUFF
THE WASTE HEAT CAN BE USED TO MAKE CAR FUEL, MEANING WE NO LONGER HAVE TO PAY A TRILLION A YEAR TO THE MIDDLE EAST EVERY YEAR JUST IN OIL IMPORTS
AND IT'S EVERYWHERE, IT'S CHEAP, AND CHINA IS AHEAD OF US ON THIS TOO, LETS GET CRACKIN'

Gotta sell it like a extremely enthusiastic car salesman.

>>3893434
>goldball
*golfball

>Why are we not building this?

Because it's a lie. If it was real, they'd build it and make more money than God. They don't, so it isn;t.

I love how envirofacists are voting to ban nuclear on Japan while there isn't a single alternative avaliable.

>try to make nuclear energy thread
>duplicate file entry detected
the fuck?
>find this thread

i love you guys

also, UC berkeley made a neat hybrid air and salt cooled pebble bed reactor. the air cooling is a natural regulation mechanism, and kicks into overdrive during emergencies
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/pb-ahtr/

also, the absolutely critical obstacle to anything nuclear related forever is public opinion

but instead of getting bummed out, it's probably better to brainstorm some kind of method to sway public opinion with facts.
now i'm not saying that'll be easy, but it has to be done before nuclear science can advance at any acceptable pace

Accelerator Driven Subcritical Reactors

The nuclear pile is naturally subcritical and can't support a self sustaining chain reaction. Extra neutrons from a particle accelerator spallation system are needed to keep the reaction going. If you want to shut the reaction off all you have to do is shut off the particle accelerator. It's incredibly safe.

>>3894514

One of these in every letterbox

>>3894514
Easy to read infographics are always a help.

>>3894514
> but instead of getting bummed out, it's probably better to brainstorm some kind of method to sway public opinion with facts.

No, you already lost the game. You already gave in to the MARKETING game, believing that you can just overcome a marketing bias with ... MORE MARKETING.

The root cause is that Americans grow up in a public-ed system dominated by filthy Liberals, and those guys HATE nuclear power. Get the filthy Liberals OUT of the pub-ed system and you'll have a good start to fixing the rest of what ails us.

And to do THAT, you'll have to hurry up the process of destroying the pub-ed systems that unions haven't already destroyed.

>>3894544
get the liberals out so that we can let kids decide between evolution and jesus?
there's problems on both sides

>>3894514

I could see Australia accepting LFTR's. It would give us something to spend all the Carbon Tax profits on

>>3894551

Children will eventually stop believing in Santa, The Easter Bunny, Tooth-fairy and what ever explanation their parents give to them for how babies are made. What makes you think there will be a difference with God

>>3894544
the filthy liberals are reasonable enough, they're just terribly misinformed and have very deep baises mostly due to being misinformed

but any kind of mass education effort would need to evolve naturally from a starting event, something viral that isn't government run or sponsored will have the most impact.

problem is, forcing a viral event is impossible

>>3893445
Other than shipping coal or oil across oceans? Yea, I don't really get it, one poorly designed 2nd gen reactor doesn't mean nuclear is all bad.

Hell, we're our 4th gen, looking at reactors that are subcritical normally and envirofags are still shitting themselves.


I posted this before and people laughed at me. Why don't we just dump the waste in volcanic fissures? I forget the densities and melting points, but it looked like uranium at least would sink and melt.

>>3894556
the point is there's no magic alternative like kicking libs out.
people don't grow out of god when they get older, what planet do you live on?

>>3894559
spreading the idea in engineering circles and general public education articles is a good way to go.

>>3894571
those don't spread nearly well enough. you basically have to break the general populace out of the american idol-Call of duty-michael bay trance and make them think critically for more than half a minute

it's extremely difficult.

>>3894529
If thorium is so perfect, then why isn't it used?

>>3894582
did i mention how public opinion is a huge obstacle?
yeah

>>3893029
Even by the most optimistic projections practical fusion power is still 50 years away, and even then it will be dirty radioactive D-T fusion reactors.

>>3894587
But the infographic says thorium is much safer than traditional nuclear-electric plants.

If all you say are going to say is "the public hates thorium for no reason at all!" I'll be forced to assume you are hiding something from me just to make your pet technology look better.

>>3894582
By the time scientists got serious about researching thorium reactors light water reactors were already a proven technology that took advantage of an already existing uranium based infrastructure.

>>3894582

Bombers using LFTR's vs Submarines using LWR's. Submarines won and LFTR's got their funding dropped

>>3894609
>"the public hates thorium for no reason at all!"
no, the public hates nuclear energy for reasons which are usually false or myths
they cannot distinguish between different types of nuclear energy

>>3894615
the fireball reactor was never going to be in an airplane, that was mostly just a goofy way for weinburg to get funding to build more reactors

seriously, the shielding necessary to protect the reactor would weigh several times more than the entire plane

>>3894600
*ahem*

I want someone to tell me why we can't just dump our nuclear waste into volcanoes.

>>3894615
The nuclear bomber had a sodium cooled reactor.

>>3894616
>false or myths
Like what?

here in the UK the house of lords has recently been discussing thorium to some extent in a surprisingly honest and optimistic manner and it seems to be on the cards now for the future developments of our nuclear program, they also discussed increasing nuclear investment which is good news. Things seem hopeful and a lot of our major newspapers have written honest and good articles about LFTRs whilst also catering to the green crowd.

If you could please vote on this that would also be good!

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-
of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors

and this

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/743

>>3894635
go watch a newscast about fukushima, that should really put things in perspective.

but the major ones are
>nuclear energy is incredibly unsafe and any accidents are covered up by governments
>nuclear waste will seep out of any container its put in, sneak into your house and strangle your children
>anything any expert ever says about nuclear power is false because they're being paid off by the government

>>3894635

Nuclear Power plants consist of Nuclear Bombs with power outlets

>>3894631
Because volcanos in real life don't have exposed pools of magma like they do in cartoons.

>>3893029
>fusion

We won't make it that far if we don't have the energy fission provides first.

Also early fusion reactors are all going going to be a dirty radioactive mess anyway. Deuterium-tritium kicks out too many neutrons.

>>3894636
what are some fake towns i can put in there to fake being a uk citizen

>>3894646
Well, no, but fissures do and I'm pretty sure if you found a ballsy helicopter pilot you could drop some stuff in the Hawaii volcanoes.

I guess I have a hard time conceptualizing how much nuclear waste BWR's produce. A lot, according to that infographic.

>>3894654

use Cambridge for now and use one of these post codes.

CB5 8HH
CB5 8HQ
CB1 2QP
CB4 2SY
CB4 2UX

>>3894671
sweet thanks, i signed it

>>3894644
This was my experience during the meltdown. All the people like you on /sci/ kept stating there was nothing wrong, that everything was under control. The news kept saying stuff MIGHT get worse. Then radiation readings went up. People like you on /sci/ kept saying that nothing was wrong and everything was blown out of proportion. The news said things might get worse. The the hydrogen buildup exploded, proving the fuel casings had melted through.

It followed that course for days. Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the anti-anti-nuclear power posters on /sci/ given what I saw you guys posting during the meltdown.

>>3894660
Yes, lets drop radioactive waste into a volcano that has some of the most frequent eruptions in the world. I can't imagine anything possibly going wrong.

>>3894693
C'mon man, it's just the Big island. It's not as if we weren't detonating nuclear warheads on islands all around the Pacific.

Ooo, how about we nuke it to open it up, then drop the stuff in?

>>3894693

What if we just dumped nuclear waste into the mantle

>>3894691
Given the media's track-record on exaggerating shit, I'm still going to trust the interwebz over Fox or CNN. I guess I posted it elsewhere, but people in the media were seriously entertaining the idea that the radiation from Fukushima was a danger in Cali.

>>3894691
Let me put things into perspective.

Number of people killed by the tsunami: 18000
Number of people killed by the meltdown: 0

Even as the second worse nuclear accident in history it was probably the least destructive consequence of the earthquake.

>>3894702
Well, there's the obvious problem of the fact that we haven't even drilled through the crust yet.

That would obviously be a better solution.

Why can't we have more MAD /sci/ence?

>>3894691
>The the hydrogen buildup exploded, proving the fuel casings had melted through.
what? no, there was never a melt-through. there was a melt DOWN, but that's different. and the fact the fuel rods completely melted but there wasn't anything more than a hydrogen explosion that blew off tertiary containment is a testament to the reactor's design.
A hydrogen explosion does not equal a melt through, you might want to read the accident reports before accusing people of downplaying things

by the way, we really weren't far off. the radiation levels did go up but then started going back down, but you haven't heard anything about that have you? disasters become less interesting when recovery is occurring.

the exclusion zones around the plant are being slowly lifted, and radiation has been back down to background levels since like, September

it isn't that bad, it never was.

>>3894705
i'm honestly concerned about how many babies were forcefully iodine overdosed by panicking mothers.
god damn media bullshit

>>3894691

Except it didn't do shit
.
>Then radiation readings went up.

So minor it hurts. Radiation is not some glowing force that gives you cancer in seconds. The entire amount of heightened background radiation caused by Fukushima killed NOBODY. Two, all of two fucking people got radiation sickness, and they didn't even die from it.
They might get cancer later, shock.

>The the hydrogen buildup exploded, proving the fuel casings had melted through.

One, no, the explosion did not prove that. It was a steam explosion, utterly harmless, and it compromised nothing.


Did we mention how Fukushima was comprised of two Gen1 and two Gen2 reactors? As in, two of them are pre-Chernobyl SHITHEAPS? As in, what we're literally forbidden from building ever again?


Grgh.

>>3894723
It's the new evolution. Well, it would be if intelligent people would start fucking like bunnies.

>>3894726
>Two, all of two fucking people got radiation sickness, and they didn't even die from it.
They might get cancer later, shock.
probably not. those two workers are being used as some magical statistic to cause more hype

here's what happened
Two workers were turning connections on in the basement of the plant, they were ankle-deep in some water they didn't know was emitting beta radiation rather severely. They got radiation burns on their ankles, went to a local hospital, were treated, probably threw up a few times, but were released with a clean bill of health two days later

their chances of getting cancer are actually very low, since that's often caused by low long term doses instead of quick ones

>>3894702
Some people have proposed dumping waste at subductive zones so the waste will eventually be pulled under the mantle. Personally I think it would be a waste of perfectly good recyclable fuel.

>>3894702

The mantle is under extreme pressure. You don't want to drill a hole into it.

>>3894815

The nuclear engineers of the world agree with you, which is why our plan for "waste" is to put it in storage.

>>3894723
I'm unaware if any of the fuel pellets were actually exposed so my choice of words was off. What I should have said that the hydrogen proved that the fuel rod casings were compromised.

The hydrogen was produced by the oxidation of the zircaloy casing of the fuel rods. That occurs at temperatures that compromise the containment of fuel rods. Before the explosions no one was sure what was going on in the core, and a lot of posters on /sci/ kept saying that everything was fine inside the reactors and that the media simply hated nuclear energy and wanted to demonize it. The explosions proved that everything was not fine. Again and again /sci/ said everything was alright and again and again things turned out to be worse than what was immediately apparent.

Anyone have an estimate on how long it will take and how much it will cost to cleanup Fukushima Daiichi mess?

>>3894818
>my team is drilling the first hole through the crust
>our drill start encountering softer material, definitely looks to be getting much hotter
>OH SHIT MAGMA JUST SHOT INTO OUR RIG

Interestingly, one of the ways vulcanism occurs is when the pressure on the hot solid rock is released, the rock liquefies due to the decrease in pressure.

>>3894815
You mean some people of repute? So I'm not an innovative mad scientist?

How long does breeder reactor waste remain deadly?

>>3894825
>mfw the DOE made plans for our nuclear waste stockpiles to be identifiable after civilization has fallen

>>3894845
A valid point. The long term plan obviously didn't involve reuse.

>>3894859
Of course, the long term plan isn't going to be finished for, what 30 years?

>>3894863
whoops, make that never. yucca mountain got cancelled in 2010

>>3894859
Yeah, I kind of have a love-hate thing for this guy. The reason for hate should be obvious.

>>3894841

Depends on which byproduct. Several are actually useful for medical or industrial purposes and are harvested rather than disposed of.

Most of it decays in months, while the longest-lived dangerous byproducts take around 300 years to decay to safe levels. It's a fair bit shorter than the 100,000 years for pressurized light water reactor waste.

>>3894873
But to get extract all that energy, and thus reduce the danger of radiation so drastically, the fuel must be processed past the point of economic viability. The energy market, like every other market, is too competitive for such charity. It's cheaper just to store the waste and let the next generation deal with it.

>>3894897
>past the point of economic viability

I don't think you quite understand just how dense a source of energy nuclear fission is. A chunk of thorium ore the size of your palm contains enough energy to provide all of the power you will use in your entire life.

If burning coal is economically viable, then so is cracking thorium down to iron.

>>3894939
He's talking about the uranium fuel cycle. Reprocessing might let us recover usable fuel, but it's not economically competitive yet.

>>3894962
The uranium fuel cycle is fantastically expensive compared to breeder or thorium fuel cycles. We don't use present uranium cycles because it's economically competitive at all. We use it because it's established.

>>3894977
>We don't use present uranium cycles because it's economically competitive at all.
It's almost as cheap as coal and expected to stay competitive for the rest of the century.

>>3894977
>expensive
Not per watt.

>>3894962

Fuel process to start thorium or breeder cycle: $10,000
Fuel process start uranium cycle: $50,000,000

>He's talking about the uranium fuel cycle.

I certainly hope he's not, because that's just silly.

>>3894982
>It's almost as cheap as coal

See, this is where you're getting it all wrong. It's almost as EXPENSIVE as coal. It's way more expensive than alternatives we could be using. Disgustingly so.

>>3894832
at the plant itself? probably a decent bit, and it'll take a few years at least
the area around it? it's fine for habitability right now, but for the sake of precaution they're keeping people out while they do soil samples and stuff. there really isn't much contamination to be worried about

>paying more than $0.01/KWh
>2011

Nuclear power always will be a symbol of cold war politics and massive manmade disasters. It is to the general public what religion or eugenics is to sci and therefore will never be fully accepted.

>>3895028
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

>>3894582

Because the original purpose of nuclear research was to develop bombs, and you can't use it to make bombs very effectively.

>>3895015
>I certainly hope he's not, because that's just silly.
>implying thorium is better than uranium in every way
>implying that thorium reactors are nowhere to be seen because everyone but you is insane
You people are sounding more and more like those project orion nuts who want to detonate a billion nuclear bombs in the Earth's atmosphere over the next century.

>>3895035
Oh great, this idiot is here.. I guess it's time to hide this thread so I don't have to watch as it turns into even more of a train wreck.

>>3895055

Reality is inconvenient, deal with it.

>>3895054

Detonating nukes in the atmosphere is a stupendously bad idea. I'm saddened about the ones we already have.

Thorium is sufficiently more suitable as a nuclear fuel for electricity generation and we should consider migrating to it over the pressurized time bombs we use now, but it's not some magic substance.

Most people do not know very much about nuclear energy. This does not mean that they are insane.

Do not resort to putting words in my mouth when you can't think of an argument, thank you.

>>3895035
the worst part is that he's completely right
except for
>cannot be fully accepted
doesn't really need to be "full" accepted, just accepted enough that the retards no longer have enough power to deny it

>>3895054

Cool ad hominem bro, but check out these doubles.

>>3895054
it is kind of uncanny, isn't it?
but we're basically just listing off features the MSRE employed, and that ran fine for a couple years already soooo....

but please, bring to bear some serious flaws in the design. there are a few, i'm wondering if you're even aware of them

>>3895104

What was the energy output of the MSRE, anyway?

It probably wasn't built for maximum energy efficiency, just a "test if it works" thing, right? What were the numbers, at any rate?

>>3895123
7.4 megawatts thermal, not nearly commercial power plant level, but still pretty crazy given how tiny the entire thing was.

>>3895176
oh, and if you look at pictures of the graphite core, the thing could probably fit in the back of a pickup. now that's hot

>>3895104
>actually give a fucking argument!
I have no argument to give. I'm simply stating what it looks like from my perspective. I have come across plenty of people with pet technologies that would say anything to make it the pet technology of those around them. In the end there is always some absurd part of the technology that makes its application impractical.

You can go ahead and mock my argument from ignorance if you like, but can you blame me for being skeptical when posters claim they have a design for a $100 car that runs on water and that the only reason it isn't on every roadway is because all the people in the world but them are sheeple?

That said, looking at your posts leads me to believe you are a pretty reasonable fellow. I'll keep an ear open for thorium reactors.

>>3895176

Several small LFTR's floating around the ocean on a cargo ship would do wonders for humanitarian aid. Portable Desalination?

>>3895180
Someone needs to tell the military that if they fund thorium they can have nuclear powered tanks with unlimited range. Planes too although I guess they'd have to be propeller driven.

>>3895213

>you
>not distinguishing between fusion and fission

>>3895217
Except tanks tend to go places where stuff explodes. Scattering nuclear waste across the landscape is too insane even for people who make a living off war.

>>3895220

What the fuck are you talking about?

>>3895202
>claim they have a design for a $100 car that runs on water

The difference here is that the car has no workable design or better yet a working example. I'd be skeptical too without some compelling evidence.

>>3895213
possibly, it'd certainly be safe and compact enough, but your shielding will be very fucking heavy

>>3895202
oh, skepticism is understandable really.
and to be honest, lots of the thorium supporters on here don't seem to really consider the cost/benefit analysis of the thing, mostly just quoting kirk sorensen's presentation ever now and again, it's a little irritating.

i think some people are getting a little too excited

>>3895217
>tanks
no, that's too small.
keep in mind that thorium (specifically U233) has a critical mass just like everything else. And you're only putting .03% U233 in your fuel salt mix, so you kind of have a minimum fuel salt amount to work with.

MSRE was tiny by lftr standards, probably about as small as you can get.

>>3895311

Maybe you are misunderstanding the potential of nuketanks.

Tanks are small, because cost of fuel. With nuclear power we could make landships.

>>3895314
>landships
sounds somewhat impractical, a good bit of tank combat is based around maneuverability, as far as i know

>>3895314

I know this music...

I am a card carrying liberal and I support nuclear power.

NUCLEAR NUCLEAR YES PLEASE. I want to see shitloads of nuke plants ( i am aware we have much safer designs now than ever, and shit the current track record of our retard-ancient nukes is damn good eh?) AND I want solar and wind where feasible.

The reason "liberals" are anti-nuclear is because of weapons proliferation mainly. Also, very few people have any idea wtf goes on in a nuclear power plant in general, as such, equate it with permanently and horrifyingly toxic waste (not really a stretch currently eh? Who wants that shit?) and weapons proliferation.

anyhow....

The nuclear haters upset me. Shit works. I also love the solar and wind, why the fuck not? Use all the clean fucking energy we can i say... Problem is who to trust with it. Get us OFF the dinosaur power. We literally don't need it. Save it for a rainy day.

>>3895332
i'd buy you a beer if i met you in a bar, bro. you're a very rare breed

>>3895314
what the fuck is that gonna do? How many tanks do we use in this century's wars?

Why can't they just force build a plant anyway?

It's not like anybody in this fucking country has any power. Do something good at least.

>>3895314

I think the military would rather drag them around the battlefield providing power to static defenses

>>3895348
The NRC cockblocking it
NIMBYs sueing anyone and everyone who tries it for any charge they can think up
greenies standing around the construction site in a hippie commune
trying to raise money from congress people who want to look good for votes, and "funding nuclear power" is political suicide

>>3895351
that might work, but it's still be incredibly heavy and hard to move, better to use nuclear aircraft carriers to be honest. the reactors in those vessels are rock-fucking-solid, and the crew trained to operate them have ice in their veins

>>3895343
Many. We used tons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

>>3895340
I think thats bullshit man. I live in the northeast, sure, but all of my "liberal" friends are pragmatists. We just see inequality where it is. All men ARE created equal... society take that elsewhere most of the time. Luck comes into play too, right?

>How to solve energy crisis
LFTR

>How to achieve world peace
LFTR

>How to make sustainable colony in space?
LFTR

>>3895357
Yeah sure, but tell me how many tanks do the afghans have? None?

Fuck that shit. Anyhow a big ass nuclear powered tank is a sitting duck for any aircraft. Now we have Land-carrier groups, for real?

The reason we dont have nuke-tanks is because it's stupid.

>>3895358
i'm probably just letting political prejudice influence me too much, but i have rarely if ever come across someone who supports alternative energy as well as nuclear power. it's almost mutually exclusive


>>3895360
first one?
for grid and industrial power, sure, but not entirely
second one?
war, war never changes....
third one?
quite true. all dat thorium on the moon man, mars too.

>>3893030

Because oil is still to cheap. We really dont need it yet, if you think about it. When fossil fuel cost begins to rise, anti-nuclear movement will be gone in no time.

>>3895363
>for grid and industrial power, sure, but not entirely
1) Fully electric cars are already in the market.
2) Water cracking

>Google "Where to mine Thorium"
>World of Warcraft, World of Warcraft EVERYWHERE!

That's it, I hate human.

>>3895372
no, the pro-solar and pro-wind movement will just gain more steam (and government subsidies)

i like solar, long term, like 20 years down the road. right now it's sort of clunky
fuck wind forever, not viable large scale

>>3895375
i meant more like off the grid power, since grid maintenance is kind of an expensive thing for everyone involved
by water cracking i assume you mean getting hydrogen for fuel cells. that's another one of those "down the road" things.

>>3895376

Where there's rare earth metals there's Thorium, China has loads, Australia has Loads and so does the US

>>3895363
yeah i dont get it either. I think the goal is to end global warming. Nuclear (or fusion!) power does the fucking trick.

Its REALLY hard to tell, from my perspective at least, which is cheapest or best, but I also dont care since burning up all that shit underground is clearly bad.

Anyhow I still think that they all are afraid that nuclear power=nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents. some of that is a big deal, but nobody sits down and looks at the technical differences, or i guess trusts those in charge (mainly energy people with a vested interest OBV) to do it right. I don't blame them on the last point really.

Itys up to a politician to redefine something into safety. Anyhow guysm this is why Im moving to france =)

>>3895393
>moving to france
not a bad plan
they're about to get some good income from germany which shut down all their nuclear power plants due to the insane green movement within the country following fukushima.

'course it's hard to run a country when a big chunk of your power base just went dark, and you're forced to spend untold billions on shitty wind farms

importing the juice from frame (85% nuclear) seems to be the option they're going for

france'll probably sit in its chair, counting bills saying "suckers"

>>3895405
Whats worse theyre probably gonan replace some of that capacity with fucking COAL and imported gas, wich mind you the biggest exporter is russia. Blackmail anyone?

>>3895393
>Moving to France

But... that's the total opposite of America!!

Serious question:
Is it hard moving to France?

>>3895423
yeah, it is the opposite of america sadly
and damnit if i don't love this burning ship full of fat people and retards
gettin' all choked up here!

>>3895405
well, that has nothing to do with it. More like france is a bastion of freedom and democracy, and they gave us that bigass statue (and i just wanna point out, some turrists crashed a plane into something FAR NEWER rather than that old thang)

I think it's hard to count the contributions of the french to the modern world, and modern, functional socialism!

Just gotta sit around this country a while longer and learn some more. Also, American philosophy is pretty firmly analytic, I want to go over there and make some people angry =)

>>3895423
I dunno. I want to go as part of my education and never come back. Ill let you know in (another) ten years

>>3895424
I have family living in Spain, and an uncle in Germany. How hard would it be to live and work in either of those countries for the rest of my life?

>>3895432
No problem at all, likely. If you have direct family ties you can probably get citizenship easy! and the EU allows free movement! Viva?

>>3895383

>no, the pro-solar and pro-wind movement will just gain more steam (and government subsidies)

Yes, but nuclear and renewables are not mutualy exclusive. My post was meant to show what will happen if renewables dont succeed in powering humanity despite the large subsidies. If they do, then good for us.

The only thing allowing anti-nuclear movement to exist currently is cheap fossil fuel energy.

>>3895437
> My post was meant to show what will happen if renewables dont succeed in powering humanity despite the large subsidies.
well, the problem is that people will just lobby for more research into it
everyone has this really intense boner for wind and solar, it doesn't seem to be subsiding any time soon

>The only thing allowing anti-nuclear movement to exist currently is cheap fossil fuel energy.
you are severely underestimating the power of stupid, frightened people in large voting groups.
i've seen some shit man, i've seen some shit

>create nucular thread before going to sleep, not even bump it
>wake up, fire up /sci
>122 posts and 6 image replies omitted

You guys are cool.

>>3895436
technically an uncle settled with family there. My other uncle is actually working for the USArmy in germany. Spain looks so beautiful haha...

>>3895440
>you are severely underestimating the power of stupid, frightened people in large voting groups.
i've seen some shit man, i've seen some shit

I'm interested in this bit of information. What serious shit will large group of idiots like you said can bring? Also, what's your experience with them?

>>3895437
is he a citizen? that helps. I would contact a lawyer if you are serious. Move to spain, fuckit. YOU GET TO LIVE IN SPAIN. Are you, like me, a fucking socialist commie pig? I mean, america is fucking gorgeous, but so's that continent.

I dunno man, I've been all over this country, and its super gorgeous, but I really hate our political system and mindless, spiritually vacuous, materialist culture. Its the same all over! My life's work is to get out, and be as smart as I can be at that. Whats here for you? whats there for you? If I were in my shoes, I'd jump ship.

I can get into the UK, but I wont settle for less than the continent.

>>3895440
Solar is not so bad the problem is even when we do the right thing we do it all wrong. Instead of subsidizing small inefficient photovoltaics we should be creating giant heliostats. We have well over half a million square km of desert using even a small percentage of this for power production could go a long way towards meeting our ever expanding energy needs.

Another prime example is biofuels. Instead of growing efficient crops with good net energy ratios we make corn ethanol which just barely yields a net gain in energy and raises the price of food as an extra malus.

>>3895451
entire swaths of college campuses that think The China Syndrome was a documentary

normally very intelligent physics or math majors who basically devolve into "chernobyl killed millions" when the nuclear question is raised

PROFESSORS who do SERIOUS RESEARCH into alternative energy projects that don't know what radiation actually fucking is, and think it's legitimate a green glow

i've
seen
some
shit

Ive hard there is some essay or lecture by Sorensen reasonably explaining why LFTRs were not adopted during the cold war despite the advantages, while avoiding the conspirational tone. Anyone has a link? Because thats a big obstacle to PR imho, when people ask that question and thoriumfags start going almost conspirational.

>>3895467
>Another prime example is biofuels. Instead of growing efficient crops with good net energy ratios we make corn ethanol which just barely yields a net gain in energy and raises the price of food as an extra malus.
cool story; brazil has a fucking fantastic biofuel economy, they use sugar cane since it can grow basically anywhere and the energy content is pretty damn good.
the whole country runs on the stuff, and it's fucking _cheap_

>>3895467
yea man, keep in kind now we subsidize fossil fuels far more due to national security concerns. I say, frasnkly, we piss a few billion more into solar ANYTHING. Why the fuck not? Wave of the future... investing i technology is ONLY a boon, its not like even is solar turns out to be stupid, that the technological benefits aren't worth it,

I dunno how you lean, but maybe you should devote your time to convincing people who ACTUALLY care about energy policy, by educating them on the science?

Im not trying to trash you, see, its a political issue (giant argi-corps growing bio-engineered industrial corn) not a science issue. GET ON US COMMIE'S SIDE HERE.

LFTR dimethyl ether production (almost ideal non-fossil hydrocarbon fuel):

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

http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1664&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

>>3895461
Well my uncle was in the Navy. I suppose he was stationed in Spain, but got "fired" whatever the word is. He's married, and now lives there.

There are a few things I want to take care of here. But I generally agree with you, about what you said. I am an illustrator. I made the silly mistake of going to art school when I was 17. So I do have debt, (and believe me I'm no protestor, I want to take care of my own issues and work.) I did work hard and I have strong drawing and painting abilities, I just have a weak portfolio. It'll be at least a year at least before being commercially applicable. All the commercial illustration/graphic jobs are in NYC and LA.

I'm also considering a career change. Hitting the books and absorbing what I can about engineering and math. I fucked around in highschool, but I know I'm not a lost cause. Without giving up on my drawing abilities.

tldr who gives a shit :p

>>3895504
eeeh
i'm not too hopeful about that, it makes some nasty ass waste products and heat is only one of quite a few complex steps

large scale desalination seems more useful

Turkey has a lot of thorium too, so I've heard. A few years ago a group of scientists studying thorium reactors were killed in a plane crash. It created some surprise in media, and an uprorar in the local conspiracy theorists... Turkey Doesn't have any nuclear plants yet, but they have closed the deal with Russians for building one - of course, it will be an old GENIII 8if not II) model. Of course, we will have to import the enriched fuel, which makes no sense at all. I don't want to sound crackpot, but I have no doubt that Putin would have those scientsists killed if they could have created a public resistance.

>>3895853
Now, I don't think they could have created a public movement because the current govt. has too much media power. They wanted to get in to bed with Putin in an BWR so they did, and no scientist could have prevented that. But, I remember the Energy minister saying, while Russian deal was very recent, "there were people who offered to build prototype reactors, reactors that were not used in any other countyr before. we are not a test ground. So we chose a tested, reliable technology". Fuck you, Mr. minister.

A weirdly relevant article from the bbc just got put up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15288975

and that, gentlemen, is why i pay my License fee.

>>3895892
While I love nuclear power, BED doesn't really work due to the difference in the the radio-isotopes in bananas and nuclear waste.

>>3895892

The radioactivity of bananas due to Potassium-40 content is well-known. See also: Brazil nuts.

Fun fact: A banana produces a particle of antimatter on average once every 75 minutes.

>>3896055
They truly are the atheist's nightmare.

>>3894562

nice idea bro. the earth is loosing natural radioactivity anyways so it would be even better! amirite?

>>3894517

We've already got self-managing criticality. We don't need a particle accelerator "key"

Turning off the chain reaction is not the problem. The problem is the heat production from residual fission byproducts. Those energetically decay entirely on their own and stopping the reactor does not stop them.