any chance to turn Nuclear reactors around with a safer Reac

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:41c20aed-5fa0-4f77-a4d5-4e9ad5b5ce6c@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
On 7/7/19 10:55 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:qfrau1$bmh$3 @dont-email.me:

you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

A billion windmills would not dampen the surface flow on
Earth one
fucking iota, you abject idiot!

JD thinks tidal power will cause the Moon to crash into his house

Don't you mean "tidal attraction"?

Actually, what it does is pound the shores of the oceans, making
the local rocks there into sand. Unless your house is outside
the Moon's current orbit, it won't collide (but days will get
rather longer). Earth's day used to be 18 hours long...
r

I think we should send 100 million one ton blocks of polar ice
there.

worried about weight? Bring back tons of moon media.

Tidal power should be used to slowly fill tall water towers like
gravity capacitors where it sits waiting to be used on peak demand
moments.

That way, none of the idiots can claim that we are altering things
by using tidal energy.

 

For all you know they have a fusion solution and haven't told the
rest of the world yet.

Tokamak.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 4:24:36 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

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.

Trader4 doesn't know much about anthropogenic global warming or nuclear power, so he feels free to be amused.

> Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should still be far better > than a global climate catastrophe.

The global clinmate "catastrophe" isn't going to look all that catastrophic for quite a while. It will produce some localised catastrophes - so far limited to recording breaking wind speeds in occcasional troapical cyclones.

Nuclear power poses different kinds of risks and trying to equate the two is a bit silly. The bottom line is that solar power and wind power can be installed in smaller chunks, along with the batteries and pumped storage to cope with the fact that they don't provide power continuously.

Nuclear power stations would help, but they take a decade or for planning, permissions and construction, and nobody wants to tie up all that capital for taht long before they state seeing cas coming in from customers.

> The same folks are pretty much against everything else too.

There are some lunatic tree-huggers in the group, but they are a tiny minority.

They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too.

Some people are little too fixated n potential problems.

> Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.

Offshore windmills create artificial reefs, which are good for fish.

Birds cope with predatory birds who fly much faster than windmill blades rotate, and are lot less predictable. And if you put the windmills far enough off-shore, nobody can see how ugly they. Their "uglyness" hasn't stopped a lot of big windmills getting built on-shore. we drove past quite a few of them last week when drving down from the Netehrlands to Burgundy (through Belgium and Luxemburg).

On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

5% of the population is nuts. They make silly complaints, which tend to be ignored.

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.

I picked up one such suggestion and posted it here some time ago.

Some of the istopes of palladium could capture a deutron and spit out an alpha particle - which would be cold fission, rather than cold fusion, but still an energy source. It could explain that odd behaviour that started the cold fusion story in the first place.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2@googlegroups.com:

For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors to
date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational for
over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

You must be one of the uninformed. Tokamak has been OOO for along
time... since '99.

The national spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) is the new tech. at
Princeton... "The Spherical Tokamak".

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Spherical_Torus_Experiment>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:47:13 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:qfragv$bmh$2
@dont-email.me:

This troll is a maroon...

And you are a fucking Usenet moron.

You quote entire headers, which is only about as retarded as a
Usenet poster can get.

It does not matter how you feel or what you believe the poster is
made of or intends. Your fucked in the head opinion on trolldom
matters not. Your stupid full header quoting is about the most
retarded shit in Usenet today.

You are at the very bottom of the Usenet stupidity totem pole, boy.

Wrong. That's krw's personal space. John Doe gets close, but krw is the ultimate bottom-feeder.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
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.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.

John Doe doesn't seem to have access to up-to-date information.

Solar cells now produce power more cheaply than anything than hydroelectric plants in favoured locations (pretty much all of which have been exploited for the last century). Where's the waste?

> But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical.

Wind is equally practical. Both solar and wind power are intermittent, and you need power storage if you want them to be your main source of power, but that too is practical.

If global warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

Why? More of the heat moves from the equator to the poles in ocean currents, and windmills aren't going to slow the air-circulation enough to have a perceptible effect.

And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.

John Doe's idea of what is "viable" is about as reliable as the rest of his output.

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.

They didn't have many nuclear reactors, and those that they had are being retired early. It was a political choice aimed at keeping the less intelligent voters happy. The US makes it's own politically motivated idiotic choices - look at the health care system - and is at considerably greater risk of falling apart that Germany - and this was true even before Trump got to be president.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get Lieberman out first)

So if people find out about that they will oppose it no doubt, or some will.. And part of that is their not complete confidence in technology and I actually cannot disagree. These days, science has fucked up enough to justify a healthy skepticism to say the least. I have proof of data that were actually paid for and it goes on and on. Say I make a speaker and I want you to say it is the best speaker in the world. Most people would do that for fifty bucks.

In fission reactors France, the cunts they are... actually showed the world how to do it. They got a kagillion nuclear plants and I am pretty sure they have had no accidents. Well except for that guy who dropped his "Royale" on the floor. A Royale is a quarter pounder, but they have the metric system. After the movie Pulp Fiction came out, when we wanted to get a quarter pound of smoke we would say we want a Royale.

Anyway, as useless as they may be in war they are damn good at making electricity. Well everybody has their strengths and weaknesses.

Anyway, I heard about the Tokamak before I was on the internet. Friend of mine works for Case, which used to be Case Western Reserve and he got me access to their BBS. A professor name Robert F. Heeter was involved, though I am pretty sure he was not local. He put out a glossary that was contributed much to by students, and I would imagine he edited it for errors since his name was on it. I still have it saved but I saved it in reserve alphabetical order, I don't remember why, I wasn't all that PC savvy then. (not that I am now lol, every time I learn something it seems they change it)

Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a country and had that shit I would never give it up.

Actually, a combination of wind and solar might do it if we get more efficient. And other things. Like not driving your big block V8 truck to work 35 miles away for a job at a bank. Myself, there are three people living in this house, do I need two deepfreezers ? Wanna clean up the planet ? First thing is to quit wasting. But the deepfreeze, it isn't that much. If it is not opened the compressor hardly ever comes on. But the thing is, waste ? Having the capacity and buying in bulk we save a ton of money. I would offer some to the Daygos next door but that might insult them. None of my chosens are hurting enough to need food. So now we have like a moratorium on buying food here.

Anyway, enough postulating about energy use and back to fusion. One of the main problems is injecting fuel. It is no so simple. I said the Tokamak was running all those years ? Well yeah but not continuously. It is going to burn out and then you have to reload it. Then you flip that LASER on to fire it up again. I do not believe there is a way to keep them running continuously but maybe they got a new idea. I am no expert, I just know the principles of operation and all that.

Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:63bac4e2-1e6a-411c-aaed-3cb13199a359
@googlegroups.com:

For all you know they have a fusion solution and haven't told the
rest of the world yet.

Tokamak.

New Jersey is not Germany. Hence the "haven't told anybody yet".

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:26:34 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

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.

They shouldn't. Burning natural gas does dump about half as much CO2 into the atmosphere per kWhour generated as burning coal, but it still dumps more than we can afford.

https://www.wingas.com/fileadmin/Wingas/WINGAS-Studien/Energieversorgung_und_Energiewende_en.pdf

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:07:27 PM UTC+2, 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.

A bizarre delusion, even for John Larkin. Greenies haven't got the political clout to make nuclear power plants even more expensive than they are now.

The politicians who insisted on stringent safety requirements were driven by general public anxiety which had reacted to events like the Windscale fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

not to mention Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.

Nuclear reactors are potentially dangerous, like pretty much every power generating scheme, but the disasters do get publicised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2
@googlegroups.com:

> Anyway, I heard about the Tokamak before I was on the internet.

Whoopie doo. It operated until '97. They started it up in '82, four
full years after I graduated and we learned about it in '77. They were
building on it years before that.

*YOUR* "triple Product" is waining... wait.. You never got there...
It is a minus 3. You have a triple divide 'product'.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2@googlegroups.com:

We are not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and
people have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states
right off the map.

Yer an idiot.

A Hydrogen Fusion A-Bomb does that.

A Tritium fusion reactor would not be "explosive"... EVER.

Wake up and smell the paranoia. Maybe you should learn to wipe
better.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2@googlegroups.com:

It is dangerous but fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out
of control.

Bullshit.

This isn't ever going to be a group of rods getting drooped into a
water bath. Easy to have a runaway situation.

Fission has radioactive waste products. Fusion, not. Also there
is not a lot of Tritium laying around the reactor to feed it, were it
to "get out of control" as you state.

What? You think it is going to melt down to the center of the
Earth, like the acid for blood in "Aliens"? Sure, bub.

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2
@googlegroups.com:

> containment field. (Star Trek anyone ?)

More like Galaxy Quest.

You need a Beryllium sphere.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:59:43 PM UTC+2, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jul 2019 23:45:51 +0000, John Doe wrote:

That's because the tree hugger is not a scientist.

I think these bastards just want to see us go back to the stone age - and
even then they'd find *something* to bitch about.

Tree huggers don't want to take us back to the stone age. They just want everything to be exactly the same as it always was. Cursitor Doom style conservatives, in other words.

And just like Cursitor Doom, they don't know enough to realise that the past they long to restore wasn't the way they like to think it was, and that the present that they want to preserve isn't actually sustainable.

Brexit was driven by the political equivalent of that sort of tree-hugger.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2@googlegroups.com:

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it.

Looks to me like this jurb dude has stepped into "the senile zone".

 

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:34:38 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:84520213-a317-4788-9fb7-c21de41b32a2@googlegroups.com:

We are not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and
people have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states
right off the map.

Yer an idiot.

A Hydrogen Fusion A-Bomb does that.

A Tritium fusion reactor would not be "explosive"... EVER.

I would not go that far. No one knows what design, if any, will
ultimately work. You might have the capability of some kind of
explosion, but probably no worse than what could happen at a
coal or similar power plant. It's not going to be an H bomb.

 

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 7:43:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 4:24:36 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

Trader4 doesn't know much about anthropogenic global warming or nuclear power, so he feels free to be amused.

Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should still be far better > than a global climate catastrophe.

The global clinmate "catastrophe" isn't going to look all that catastrophic for quite a while. It will produce some localised catastrophes - so far limited to recording breaking wind speeds in occcasional troapical cyclones..

Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years. Regardless of when
exactly a real crisis starts, all the global warming folks that I know
of say we need to act IMMEDIATELY, hence my point that if that's the
case, it's quite amusing that they don't want nukes as part of the solution..

Nuclear power poses different kinds of risks and trying to equate the two is a bit silly.

It's not silly at all. Nukes can be part of the solution. So, if global
warming is such an urgent crisis, it's amusing that the tree huggers
reject it as an option. But then they reject most anything, windmills,
solar farms, when you actually try to build one. It's also amusing to see
you dance.



The bottom line is that solar power and wind power can be installed in smaller chunks, along with the batteries and pumped storage to cope with the fact that they don't provide power continuously.

Nuclear power stations would help, but they take a decade or for planning, permissions and construction,

Only because of the tree huggers and all the BS. Maybe Trump should sign
an emergency exec order to cut through all that.




and nobody wants to tie up all that capital for taht long before they state seeing cas coming in from customers.

The same folks are pretty much against everything else too.

There are some lunatic tree-huggers in the group, but they are a tiny minority.

They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too.

Some people are little too fixated n potential problems.

Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.

Offshore windmills create artificial reefs, which are good for fish.

Birds cope with predatory birds who fly much faster than windmill blades rotate, and are lot less predictable. And if you put the windmills far enough off-shore, nobody can see how ugly they. Their "uglyness" hasn't stopped a lot of big windmills getting built on-shore. we drove past quite a few of them last week when drving down from the Netehrlands to Burgundy (through Belgium and Luxemburg).

On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.

5% of the population is nuts. They make silly complaints, which tend to be ignored.

Including you of course.

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.

I picked up one such suggestion and posted it here some time ago.

Some of the istopes of palladium could capture a deutron and spit out an alpha particle - which would be cold fission, rather than cold fusion, but still an energy source. It could explain that odd behaviour that started the cold fusion story in the first place.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational for over twenty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going off.

I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get Lieberman out first)

So if people find out about that they will oppose it no doubt, or some will. And part of that is their not complete confidence in technology and I actually cannot disagree. These days, science has fucked up enough to justify a healthy skepticism to say the least. I have proof of data that were actually paid for and it goes on and on. Say I make a speaker and I want you to say it is the best speaker in the world. Most people would do that for fifty bucks.

In fission reactors France, the cunts they are... actually showed the world how to do it. They got a kagillion nuclear plants and I am pretty sure they have had no accidents. Well except for that guy who dropped his "Royale" on the floor. A Royale is a quarter pounder, but they have the metric system. After the movie Pulp Fiction came out, when we wanted to get a quarter pound of smoke we would say we want a Royale.

Anyway, as useless as they may be in war they are damn good at making electricity. Well everybody has their strengths and weaknesses.

Anyway, I heard about the Tokamak before I was on the internet. Friend of mine works for Case, which used to be Case Western Reserve and he got me access to their BBS. A professor name Robert F. Heeter was involved, though I am pretty sure he was not local. He put out a glossary that was contributed much to by students, and I would imagine he edited it for errors since his name was on it. I still have it saved but I saved it in reserve alphabetical order, I don't remember why, I wasn't all that PC savvy then. (not that I am now lol, every time I learn something it seems they change it)

Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more expensive.

Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a country and had that shit I would never give it up.

Actually, a combination of wind and solar might do it if we get more efficient. And other things. Like not driving your big block V8 truck to work 35 miles away for a job at a bank. Myself, there are three people living in this house, do I need two deepfreezers ? Wanna clean up the planet ? First thing is to quit wasting. But the deepfreeze, it isn't that much. If it is not opened the compressor hardly ever comes on. But the thing is, waste ? Having the capacity and buying in bulk we save a ton of money. I would offer some to the Daygos next door but that might insult them. None of my chosens are hurting enough to need food. So now we have like a moratorium on buying food here.

Anyway, enough postulating about energy use and back to fusion. One of the main problems is injecting fuel. It is no so simple. I said the Tokamak was running all those years ? Well yeah but not continuously. It is going to burn out and then you have to reload it. Then you flip that LASER on to fire it up again. I do not believe there is a way to keep them running continuously but maybe they got a new idea. I am no expert, I just know the principles of operation and all that.

Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you probably shouldn't. They just pay you.

I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound ignorance on so many levels at once.

I truly feel sorry for this guy.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 7/8/19 8:12 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
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.

Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.

John Doe doesn't seem to have access to up-to-date information.

Solar cells now produce power more cheaply than anything than hydroelectric plants in favoured locations (pretty much all of which have been exploited for the last century). Where's the waste?

But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical.

Wind is equally practical. Both solar and wind power are intermittent, and you need power storage if you want them to be your main source of power, but that too is practical.

If global warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.

Why? More of the heat moves from the equator to the poles in ocean currents, and windmills aren't going to slow the air-circulation enough to have a perceptible effect.

And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.

John Doe's idea of what is "viable" is about as reliable as the rest of his output.

Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.

They didn't have many nuclear reactors, and those that they had are being retired early. It was a political choice aimed at keeping the less intelligent voters happy. The US makes it's own politically motivated idiotic choices - look at the health care system - and is at considerably greater risk of falling apart that Germany - and this was true even before Trump got to be president.

Germany's few remaining reactors are all pushing 40 years old now so
there may be lifespan issues to consider as well. The containment
structures and closed-loop cooling portion of the plumbing degrade with
time and exposure to neutron radiation and become brittle, you can't
just run them forever. The cost to repair or replace degraded portions
is probably enormous.