25 replies to this topic

[Uncle Ben]

 

Either Underground (like in a mountain) or in a place where statistically would be ideal (no fault lines, major weather disaster, etc.)

 

They do that...and it still leaks into the aquifers and water.

 

 

If done right in a Mountain there (theoretically) shouldnt be any problems

[TheRedStranger]

Either Underground (like in a mountain) or in a place where statistically would be ideal (no fault lines, major weather disaster, etc.)

 
They do that...and it still leaks into the aquifers and water.

 
If done right in a Mountain there (theoretically) shouldnt be any problems

Like I said the caustic material found it's way into a local water supply...

Thorium was used once and it led to a partial melt down.

I think focusing on Solar power is our best bet. We get all our power from the sun anyways, why not just jack in directly? Focusing research in the greenest technology out there would be the best bet. Improving the Performance of a photovoltaic cell would reap more benefits with less risk. Also synergistic alternatives on a smaller level make a brighter impact. Here's an idea that interest you. Small designs like using pressure plates under pedestrian walkways that spin a generator into motion could drastically cut power costs. Integrating daily human activity would in a since recycle our own ATP biological energy into electric power. It is like I said with the budgeting thing, it is all about proper allocation of a resource. When this resource is renewable we must find inventive, organic, and non-intrusive ways to renew it.

[Uncle Ben]

Geothermal is also a good option i think

[TheRedStranger]

Geothermal is also a good option i think

I agree 100%. I think where we can do it, we should (Iceland big time). Like I said synergy is the best option, use what is best for the situation and what will best improve the situation . Right now a lot of leftist idealism is clouding more realistic goals and approaches to this problem and at a great price. For example here in Kentucky we are suffering greatly because Obama's attack on the only sole legit resource that keeps family's feed, especially in the poor Appalachian area, coal. Environmentalist are doing more harm than good by lobbying for policies that are stealing food from children's mouths, domestic oil from our cars (which will only increase the temptation for...foreign entanglements) and forces individuals to pursue criminal careers due too economic inequality (in Applachia that would be meth and that wretched new drug called crocodille) . Conservationism however gives a window to not butcher our environment while avoiding policies that would cut away the legs of hardworking people to fit the Procrustean bed of their erroneous presuppositions, their narrow dogmatisms. It will take time for us to emancipated from oil and coal and whe need to treat the complexity of the symptoms with care being careful not to cut off fingers why loosen our grip. It would be like quitting cold turkey on an addictive drug, yet instead of killing one person you would be butchering the economy and negatively effecting various individuals.

It goes to show...there are glorious or grave consequences to our ideals.

[Louis the Hedgehog]

I think most of you were missing the point of this topic. There is a cheaper, and FAR safer nuclear reactor that is extremely difficult to make weapons with. It is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Thorium is 3 times more common than Uranium and when chemically reacted with Fluoride it becomes a liquid. Meltdowns will not be an issue because the fuel is already a liquid. If the fuel gets too hot, it turns into a gas, expanding causing the molecules to move further apart, slowing the reaction down. And if it's still too hot the molten sodium valve melts open sending the fuel to a drainage tank lined with neutron absorbers causing the reaction to stop. This reactor is walkaway safe.

 

And yes, there are waste products, but even these can still be useful. One of the byproducts is the same isotope that is heating the earth's core making geothermal energy possible, as well as the source of energy of spacecraft that are too far for solar energy to be useful (like the Voyager spacecraft).

[TheRedStranger]

I think most of you were missing the point of this topic. There is a cheaper, and FAR safer nuclear reactor that is extremely difficult to make weapons with. It is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Thorium is 3 times more common than Uranium and when chemically reacted with Fluoride it becomes a liquid. Meltdowns will not be an issue because the fuel is already a liquid. If the fuel gets too hot, it turns into a gas, expanding causing the molecules to move further apart, slowing the reaction down. And if it's still too hot the molten sodium valve melts open sending the fuel to a drainage tank lined with neutron absorbers causing the reaction to stop. This reactor is walkaway safe.

 

And yes, there are waste products, but even these can still be useful. One of the byproducts is the same isotope that is heating the earth's core making geothermal energy possible, as well as the source of energy of spacecraft that are too far for solar energy to be useful (like the Voyager spacecraft).

 

 I have to say I like the concepts of improving the retention and effectivity of the photovotalic-cell due to the ubiquity of solar energy. Also a synergistic approach just sounds ultimately more efficent. The solutions span from pressure power from roads (think about that being installed within side walks and highways...it could convert expended ATP and hydrocarbons into kinetic energy to spin a series of small generators) to geothermal, to this supposed thorium and reknewable carbon . The best option is a diversity of options. We should never put all out eggs in one basket. It's what we've done with fossil fuels, and in hindsight as with all inventions we have realized it truly isn't a panacea for all our woes.

 

 Everything looks nice on paper, even communism...and that was a disaster and a half. Atomics International has used thorium-floride compouns that are sodium cooled before, and it caused one of the aforementioned meltdowns we have been discussing. This has aroused some suspicion... I can't just be uncritical to this design, Louis. This guy works for a company that wants this to happen and profits from such, there is very well a chance that he's not giving the full story. Let's not buy this possible snake-oil just yet by watching one youtube video, okay? Let's be critical thinkers. I would want to hear from more than just this one man on the implications of thorium. There could be detractors out their as well that carry some authorative weight and some valid points to make. As for me, I will readily consider it one option...but it's not, nor it will be ever the sole option to this complex and dynamic problem. 

 

 You should do your homework on this some more. Give us some more syntopical sources, then we can draw a more valid synthesis of a consensus on this method of power-production.

 

 

And if this is true...After you've done your journalistic homework and seen if this indeed valid You need to invest some stock money in thorium! It will make a rich man. He who controls the thorium-mines...controls the economy.  You could build all the planes you want.