A
amdx
Guest
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Shakespeare had the solution to resuming the deployment of nukes.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Shakespeare had the solution to resuming the deployment of nukes.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
J
John Doe
Guest
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to other
power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United States.
According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved thousands of lives. It
produces no carbon dioxide. It's total waste from the beginning would
fill a football field to less than 10 yards high. That's why our leaders
act not very concerned about Yucca Mountain and the like.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us perilously out
of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear power plants are
failing!"
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to other
power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United States.
According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved thousands of lives. It
produces no carbon dioxide. It's total waste from the beginning would
fill a football field to less than 10 yards high. That's why our leaders
act not very concerned about Yucca Mountain and the like.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us perilously out
of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear power plants are
failing!"
J
John Doe
Guest
And BTW... A fistful of nuclear material runs a big submarine for
decades. I just think that's cool.
decades. I just think that's cool.
J
John Doe
Guest
I meant "fist size".
J
John Doe
Guest
I wrote:
Correction: "20,000 died or remain missing". The so-called "Fukushima
disaster" is nothing in comparison. Lots of videos on YouTube, just
search for (tsunami Japan 2011).
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Correction: "20,000 died or remain missing". The so-called "Fukushima
disaster" is nothing in comparison. Lots of videos on YouTube, just
search for (tsunami Japan 2011).
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us perilously out
of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear power plants are
failing!"
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 01:53:07 +0000, John Doe wrote:
https://www.rt.com/news/417716-fukushima-radiation-level-lethal/
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
https://www.rt.com/news/417716-fukushima-radiation-level-lethal/
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Guest
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:53:11 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2 emissions
are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear power. Whatever risk
there is from nuclear power, seems it should still be far better than
a global climate catastrophe. The same folks are pretty much against
everything else too. They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill
birds, look ugly. On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to other
power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United States.
According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved thousands of lives. It
produces no carbon dioxide. It's total waste from the beginning would
fill a football field to less than 10 yards high. That's why our leaders
act not very concerned about Yucca Mountain and the like.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us perilously out
of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear power plants are
failing!"
I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2 emissions
are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear power. Whatever risk
there is from nuclear power, seems it should still be far better than
a global climate catastrophe. The same folks are pretty much against
everything else too. They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill
birds, look ugly. On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/6/19 10:11 AM, bitrex wrote:
The "Chernobyl" HBO docu-drama series didn't become one of the most
popular mini-series of all time in the US and Russia because the US and
Russia public wants to re-kindle a love affair with nuclear energy like
an old ex-girlfriend you're still enamored with, it's because they think
"Ah they told those poor bastards it was 'safe', too", and they don't
really see a large distinction between how the Soviet nuclear energy
government/industry cabal operated to how the US one operates and vice
versa.
On 7/4/19 9:30 PM, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but are
seen as risky because of a few major accidents."
And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major ones.
Problem with trying to sell the public on "safer" reactors is that the
public believes the nuclear energy lobby and the private firms invested
in nuclear power are all full of shit at this point; that they'll tell
whoever needs to be told that whatever they're selling is "safer" to
make a buck, whether it's true or not, and that that's the way they've
always operated worldwide since the beginning.
The "Chernobyl" HBO docu-drama series didn't become one of the most
popular mini-series of all time in the US and Russia because the US and
Russia public wants to re-kindle a love affair with nuclear energy like
an old ex-girlfriend you're still enamored with, it's because they think
"Ah they told those poor bastards it was 'safe', too", and they don't
really see a large distinction between how the Soviet nuclear energy
government/industry cabal operated to how the US one operates and vice
versa.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/4/19 9:30 PM, amdx wrote:
"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but are
seen as risky because of a few major accidents."
And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major ones.
Problem with trying to sell the public on "safer" reactors is that the
public believes the nuclear energy lobby and the private firms invested
in nuclear power are all full of shit at this point; that they'll tell
whoever needs to be told that whatever they're selling is "safer" to
make a buck, whether it's true or not, and that that's the way they've
always operated worldwide since the beginning.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
"potentially including nuclear reactors, which emit no carbon but are
seen as risky because of a few major accidents."
And many many minor ones and close calls, not just the few major ones.
Problem with trying to sell the public on "safer" reactors is that the
public believes the nuclear energy lobby and the private firms invested
in nuclear power are all full of shit at this point; that they'll tell
whoever needs to be told that whatever they're selling is "safer" to
make a buck, whether it's true or not, and that that's the way they've
always operated worldwide since the beginning.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/5/19 11:46 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Building "safer" reactors will have similar problems to building
reactors of the usual type - they're touted by the firms that are into
designing and building reactors, and the politicians who are paid by
those firms but know little about nuclear energy, but will be viewed
with some justified skepticism by the public who in the main don't want
reactors of any type built near them, and by private capital/investment,
who will view them with some justified skepticism about their ability to
ever generate them a net profit
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Shakespeare had the solution to resuming the deployment of nukes.
Building "safer" reactors will have similar problems to building
reactors of the usual type - they're touted by the firms that are into
designing and building reactors, and the politicians who are paid by
those firms but know little about nuclear energy, but will be viewed
with some justified skepticism by the public who in the main don't want
reactors of any type built near them, and by private capital/investment,
who will view them with some justified skepticism about their ability to
ever generate them a net profit
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/6/19 10:24 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
there are differences of opinion even among the "tree huggers" there is
no "The Tree Huggers" who have a unified opinion on all topics.
There tends to be some skepticism about nuclear power there but probably
not that much more than the skepticism of the general public about it;
by themselves the greens have remarkably little political power.
If building many many new nuclear power plants in the US were at this
moment generally considered a cost-effective, safe and effective way to
make large amounts of $$$ selling energy by everyone but the greens,
then they would be popping up like daisies, the green lobby would have
little ability to prevent it. how would they do it? lobby Congress with
their whole _millions_ of dollars of available funding?
one...million...dollars! You need _real_ money to lobby effectively, not
Greenpeace-money.
> Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
Tree-huggers tend to have a better grasp of where power comes from than
the general public 50% of whom are of below average intelligence.
Google is tossing some no-judgy money to some younger independent
researchers to investigate it lately, why not, it's a longshot but they
surely have disposable income to play with.
<https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/05/cold-fusion-remains-elusive-these-scientists-may-revive-quest/>
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:53:11 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to other
power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United States.
According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved thousands of lives. It
produces no carbon dioxide. It's total waste from the beginning would
fill a football field to less than 10 yards high. That's why our leaders
act not very concerned about Yucca Mountain and the like.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just weird,
considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us perilously out
of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear power plants are
failing!"
I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2 emissions
are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear power. Whatever risk
there is from nuclear power, seems it should still be far better than
a global climate catastrophe. The same folks are pretty much against
everything else too. They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill
birds, look ugly. On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
there are differences of opinion even among the "tree huggers" there is
no "The Tree Huggers" who have a unified opinion on all topics.
There tends to be some skepticism about nuclear power there but probably
not that much more than the skepticism of the general public about it;
by themselves the greens have remarkably little political power.
If building many many new nuclear power plants in the US were at this
moment generally considered a cost-effective, safe and effective way to
make large amounts of $$$ selling energy by everyone but the greens,
then they would be popping up like daisies, the green lobby would have
little ability to prevent it. how would they do it? lobby Congress with
their whole _millions_ of dollars of available funding?
one...million...dollars! You need _real_ money to lobby effectively, not
Greenpeace-money.
> Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
Tree-huggers tend to have a better grasp of where power comes from than
the general public 50% of whom are of below average intelligence.
Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.
Google is tossing some no-judgy money to some younger independent
researchers to investigate it lately, why not, it's a longshot but they
surely have disposable income to play with.
<https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/05/cold-fusion-remains-elusive-these-scientists-may-revive-quest/>
W
Wond
Guest
On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx wrote:
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-
on-the-way/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-
News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Ever since I read that book about using Thorium fuel, I've been watching
for some sort of announcement. Nothing yet (10 yrs.?)
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-
on-the-way/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-
News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Ever since I read that book about using Thorium fuel, I've been watching
for some sort of announcement. Nothing yet (10 yrs.?)
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/6/19 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:
nuclear has only achieved high market penetration in countries with far
more socialist and environmentalist leanings than the US e.g. France and
Japan.
About 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cool their reactors;
that water is not free-market available as fresh water to sell
immediately it is reserved as coolant by fiat, the plants get it first
and the market gets whatever is left over.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:21:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap
They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.
nuclear has only achieved high market penetration in countries with far
more socialist and environmentalist leanings than the US e.g. France and
Japan.
About 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cool their reactors;
that water is not free-market available as fresh water to sell
immediately it is reserved as coolant by fiat, the plants get it first
and the market gets whatever is left over.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:21:28 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap
They don't like NG either. Every 5th atom is carbon.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/6/19 12:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:
nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
nuclear energy has always had a shitty ROI, it's even shittier now with
natural gas as cheap as it is. Greenies didn't make natural gas cheap
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Guest
On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 09:07:15 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Old nuclear weapon owners feared of the spreading of nuclear weapons
and thus allowed only low enrichment uranium to be used in commercial
reactors. For this reason, commercial reactors contains tons of
(contaminated) uranium.
Now that nuclear weapons have been spread all over the planet, is
there any sensible reason for low enriched uranium ?
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
A decently engineered nuke is already safe. Greenies have made nukes
too expensive because they don't want the people to have affordable
energy.
Old nuclear weapon owners feared of the spreading of nuclear weapons
and thus allowed only low enrichment uranium to be used in commercial
reactors. For this reason, commercial reactors contains tons of
(contaminated) uranium.
Now that nuclear weapons have been spread all over the planet, is
there any sensible reason for low enriched uranium ?
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/6/19 1:23 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
The technological hurdles are substantial, the only groups with real
interest in funding overcoming them are the utility companies, and they
don't see a financial advantage in funding the R&D at this time.
does that sum up why there hasn't been an "announcement" adequately?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 15:04:55 -0000 (UTC), Wond <lost@the_ether.com
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-
on-the-way/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-
News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Ever since I read that book about using Thorium fuel, I've been watching
for some sort of announcement. Nothing yet (10 yrs.?)
I have also wmdered about this.
As I understand it the thorium reactor needs a proton particle
accellerator to hit a target that then releases some neutrons that
then starts a single nuclear reaction in thoium.
Of course, the plant output must power the particle accellerator.
After long time operation, there are going to be some short ime
(hundreds or thousands of years) isotopes in the thorium target.
The good thing is that as soon you close the particle accellerator,
the the decay heat does not melt the thorium core into the
groundwater.
The technological hurdles are substantial, the only groups with real
interest in funding overcoming them are the utility companies, and they
don't see a financial advantage in funding the R&D at this time.
does that sum up why there hasn't been an "announcement" adequately?
Guest
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 15:04:55 -0000 (UTC), Wond <lost@the_ether.com>
wrote:
I have also wmdered about this.
As I understand it the thorium reactor needs a proton particle
accellerator to hit a target that then releases some neutrons that
then starts a single nuclear reaction in thoium.
Of course, the plant output must power the particle accellerator.
After long time operation, there are going to be some short ime
(hundreds or thousands of years) isotopes in the thorium target.
The good thing is that as soon you close the particle accellerator,
the the decay heat does not melt the thorium core into the
groundwater.
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 20:30:17 -0500, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-
on-the-way/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-
News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Ever since I read that book about using Thorium fuel, I've been watching
for some sort of announcement. Nothing yet (10 yrs.?)
I have also wmdered about this.
As I understand it the thorium reactor needs a proton particle
accellerator to hit a target that then releases some neutrons that
then starts a single nuclear reaction in thoium.
Of course, the plant output must power the particle accellerator.
After long time operation, there are going to be some short ime
(hundreds or thousands of years) isotopes in the thorium target.
The good thing is that as soon you close the particle accellerator,
the the decay heat does not melt the thorium core into the
groundwater.