What greene energy can't do.

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by STEED

What will they do with all that money?

Ask them to PM me and I will gladly give them my bank account details

[STEED]

Originally Posted by BossMark

Ask them to PM me and I will gladly give them my bank account details

All that silk toilet paper you could buy.

Mighty smooth.

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by STEED

All that silk toilet paper you could buy.

Mighty smooth.

I was thinking more on the lines of all them tins of John Smiths I could buy

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by BossMark

Ask them to PM me and I will gladly give them my bank account details

Wait, so if we PM you, you'll give us your bank account info?

[em2nought]

Would anyone like about twenty barrels of glycerine byproduct? Green energy has a ways to go before it's viable in my experience.

[Blood_splat]

Saw this on Reddit. Talks about Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

Saw this on Reddit. Talks about Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel.

Since it uses the N Word the uneducated masses will see this:

and not this:


"Ironic, isn't it? Way back in the 20th century, the H-Bomb was the ultimate weapon -- their doomsday machine.
We used something like it to destroy another doomsday machine.
Probably the first time such a weapon has ever been used for constructive purposes."
-James T. Kirk

[CaptainMattJ.]

If all homes came standard with solar panels that WERENT tacky and expensive as all get up, then why not have them?

Once the technology gets cheaper, theres really no reason not to use it. With a combination of solar powered homes producing their OWN electricity and putting back into the grid, hydroelectric, and a bit of nuclear, well have all the power well need. Eventually, solar panels or whatever theyll have in the future to substitute for it should become standard on every new home built.

oil is not our friend. Its an unhealthy addiction thats going to send our species into the toilet. Eventually it will run out. Not too far in the future we may be finding ourselves paying outrageously high gas prices, outrageously high electric bills, and a spike in pretty much the price of EVERYTHING, including food. Invest now, reap the rewards later.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Eventually it will run out. Not too far in the future we may be finding ourselves paying outrageously high gas prices, outrageously high electric bills, and a spike in pretty much the price of EVERYTHING, including food. Invest now, reap the rewards later.

Folks have been saying that almost my entire life. We were supposed to have run out of oil already but surprise, surprise they keep finding more. That's the problem with doomsday predictions. Get everyone hyped up for a non event and they aren't likely to believe you in the future. We're seeing the same thing happening with the climate change debate in general.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

Saw this on Reddit. Talks about Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel.

This Thorium nuclear idea sounds promising, but I have to ask why there have not been any attempts to put one into operation. Are there problems that make it impractical?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by TorpX

This Thorium nuclear idea sounds promising, but I have to ask why there have not been any attempts to put one into operation. Are there problems that make it impractical?

From what I understand the first one is more expensive to start than a normal plant. However it gets cheaper once that first one comes online because it can help process basic thorium in to thorium-232 which necessary for it use as fuel.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by TorpX

This Thorium nuclear idea sounds promising, but I have to ask why there have not been any attempts to put one into operation. Are there problems that make it impractical?

The proof of concept was done in the late 50's early 60's and was successful. The primary problem of impracticality is that it is impossible to breed plutonium from the thorium fuel cycle - which basically consists of neutron activation of inert thorium 232 to transmute it into uranium 233 which is the fissile energy producing fuel in this cycle. Plutonium is the easiest fissile element with which one can produce a bomb although more unstable than uranium because of the varying qualities of its isotopes though both plutonium and uranium require a similar mass to become critical. Uranium 233 can be used for a bomb, but it requires a much larger mass (or much greater pressure) to become critical, and is a powerful gamma (ultra high energy photon) emitter meaning it is extremely dangerous to handle in any amount as opposed to plutonium or uranium in sub-critical masses which can both be relatively safely held in your hand for short periods of time (certainly not advisable but less radiation than a chest CT scan for example) and are relatively easy to 'hide' as opposed to the very bright 'glow' from uranium 233 which is very easy to detect even in trace amounts. Also in the traditional uranium cycle only about 17% of the uranium undergoes fission, whereas in the thorium cycle roughly 90% of the bred uranium 233 is burned so it is much more efficient. Because thorium itself is not radioactive, does not decay over time there is a lot more of it on the planet than uranium and is therefore cheaper, easier and safer to mine and purify.

So in my opinion it seems fairly obvious the technology was shelved as interesting but useless for proliferation - which was a big issue during the cold war. Lots of anti nuclear folks do argue that if the tech was any good we'd already be doing it but I think political and economic forces over the last half century strongly suggest otherwise. There is the issue of requiring a large amount of energy for the neutron flux to breed enough uranium 233 before the reaction becomes self sustaining but this would be recouped quickly once operating at optimal output.

There are also some very interesting new ideas for next generation nuclear power plants like liquid cores (already 'melted' so no meltdown possible - again not suitable for proliferation) which could be made to work with both uranium and/or thorium solutions as well as impressive negative feedback safety systems like freeze plugs (if the core melts, the freeze plug melts and the liquid is drained into several separate reservoirs thus dividing the mass and dropping it below criticality etc.

I like the liquid core idea, because if the reaction starts increasing too fast, the temperature increase would generate gaseous bubbles or voids within the core immediately slowing the reactions down, another negative feedback concept. Combine that with a freeze plug and use thorium bred uranium 233 as a primer then you have a system that would shut itself down without human interaction in the case of a runaway chain reaction, which is impossible to make bombs from, and could thereafter burn any fissile element (particularly previously generated nuclear waste) that can be made into solution and pumped into the core as fuel. There are however very serious engineering problems yet to be solved for radioactive liquids and methodology and is probably a long time away yet. A lot closer than fusion though!

I'm sure some folks will disagree with my enthusiasm for nuclear power generation and I well know and understand all the arguments for and against of which there are many on both sides. My enthusiasm is only for the science however, and the pursuit of knowledge. In some places on this earth (not all by any means) I think nuclear power generation is the most sensible option. Regardless if the subject either fascinates or disgusts you, you may find this link interesting :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...ission_reactor

Regards, Sam.