Solar vs natural gas what do you think?

[ReinyDays]

we weren't talking just about one small town. well maybe you were

Nuclear power can replace fossil fuels 100%

Which part of 100% doesn't include small towns? ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

I believe we should have started this program 20 years ago ... however, our current design is a failure, we have to admit we made terrible mistakes and start literally from scratch on our basic design ... I had to look up LFTR and absolutely we need to abandon water as the primary coolant ... molten salt doesn't vaporize and blow up the reaction vessel ... and important safety feature ... if we can get thorium to work, and it looks like we can, we have the added safety feature of producing our fissionable material "on demand" ...

Okay, I've taken you off ignore (and only you so far) because I respect your brain. Well said.

and I'm guessing here that if we can incorporate this into a "breeder" design, we mostly eliminate the waste product issues ...

No. Breeders are bullshit for bomb making. We don't want to go there. We don't need to produce more plutonium. Get rid of what we have already? Great!

 

[ReinyDays]

No. Breeders are bullshit for bomb making. We don't want to go there. We don't need to produce more plutonium. Get rid of what we have already? Great!

I'm speaking of commercial breeder reactors ... where the fissionable by-products are themselves fissioned ... more energy, less hazardous waste ... just more expensive to build ...

 

[justinacolmena]

One downside of gas is that it is a finite resource.

Not really. The universe is full of it. The Sun's C-N-O cycle replenishes the Earth's atmosphere with nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon, which is aggressively captured into plant matter by green growth. Vegetation decomposes into peat, coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No. Breeders are bullshit for bomb making. We don't want to go there. We don't need to produce more plutonium. Get rid of what we have already? Great!

I'm speaking of commercial breeder reactors ... where the fissionable by-products are themselves fissioned ... more energy, less hazardous waste ... just more expensive to build ...

So was I. Eisenhower wasn't kidding around while warning against given the MIC too much free reign.

 

[ReinyDays]

So was I. Eisenhower wasn't kidding around while warning against given the MIC too much free reign.

Then why did you say we would be creating plutonium for weapons? ... post #62 ... a reactor designed to burn the plutonium won't produce anything for bombs ... and why the hell would St Louis, Missouri be making bombs? ...

Maybe best you put me back on ignore ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

So was I. Eisenhower wasn't kidding around while warning against given the MIC too much free reign.

Then why did you say we would be creating plutonium for weapons? ... post #62 ... a reactor designed to burn the plutonium won't produce anything for bombs ... and why the hell would St Louis, Missouri be making bombs? ...

Maybe best you put me back on ignore ...

Maybe so.

Reprocessing[edit]
Fission of the nuclear fuel in any reactor produces neutron-absorbing fission products. Because of this unavoidable physical process, it is necessary to reprocess the fertile material from a breeder reactor to remove those neutron poisons. This step is required to fully utilize the ability to breed as much or more fuel than is consumed. All reprocessing can present a proliferation concern, since it extracts weapons-usable material from spent fuel.[27] The most-common reprocessing technique, PUREX, presents a particular concern, since it was expressly designed to separate pure plutonium. Early proposals for the breeder-reactor fuel cycle posed an even greater proliferation concern because they would use PUREX to separate plutonium in a highly attractive isotopic form for use in nuclear weapons.[28][29]

Getting a clue yet?

Note: I said "free reign" above in error. I meant to say "free rein" and "giving" not "given." Sorry.

 

[itfitzme]

Thousands of square miles of solar and we get nothing from it unless the sun is shining and someone cleans the panels regularly....

? Because everything else is maintenance free?

 

[Blues Man]

we weren't talking just about one small town. well maybe you were

Nuclear power can replace fossil fuels 100%

Which part of 100% doesn't include small towns? ...

I have been talking about the US IDGAF about some small town in some shithole country

 

[ReinyDays]

Getting a clue yet?
Note: I said "free reign" above in error. I meant to say "free rein" and "giving" not "given." Sorry.

No ... your citation says "any nuclear reactor" has this flaw ... are you against all nuclear reactors, or just breeder reactors? ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Getting a clue yet?
Note: I said "free reign" above in error. I meant to say "free rein" and "giving" not "given." Sorry.

No ... your citation says "any nuclear reactor" has this flaw ... are you against all nuclear reactors, or just breeder reactors? ...

It says far more than that, yet nowhere does it mention any "flaw." Be honest and clean your glasses. Yes, I've been arguing against using breeder reactors. No secret there. Get rid of the nasty crap. Don't make more. Horrors.

 

[ReinyDays]

It says far more than that, yet nowhere does it mention any "flaw." Be honest and clean your glasses. Yes, I've been arguing against using breeder reactors. No secret there. Get rid of the nasty crap. Don't make more. Horrors.

I understand your argument ... and in many ways I agree ... what I don't understand is why you confine this argument to just breeder reactors ... what not all our current reactors? ... the waste from any and all reactors can be weaponized ... couple of spent fuel rods and 20 lbs of gunpowder and we can kill half of New York City ... a slow lingering death ... painful and obvious ... a terrorist's wet dream come true ...

 

[Blues Man]

.

It says far more than that, yet nowhere does it mention any "flaw." Be honest and clean your glasses. Yes, I've been arguing against using breeder reactors. No secret there. Get rid of the nasty crap. Don't make more. Horrors.

I understand your argument ... and in many ways I agree ... what I don't understand is why you confine this argument to just breeder reactors ... what not all our current reactors? ... the waste from any and all reactors can be weaponized ... couple of spent fuel rods and 20 lbs of gunpowder and we can kill half of New York City ... a slow lingering death ... painful and obvious ... a terrorist's wet dream come true ...

Actually the waste of LFTR reactors cannot be used to make nuclear weapons because there is no enriched uranium or plutonium left over.

The best any terrorist can ever do with LFTR products is make a dirty bomb and since that hasn't happened yet with the waste from light water reactors I don't worry too much about it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It says far more than that, yet nowhere does it mention any "flaw." Be honest and clean your glasses. Yes, I've been arguing against using breeder reactors. No secret there. Get rid of the nasty crap. Don't make more. Horrors.

I understand your argument ... and in many ways I agree ... what I don't understand is why you confine this argument to just breeder reactors ... what not all our current reactors? ... the waste from any and all reactors can be weaponized ... couple of spent fuel rods and 20 lbs of gunpowder and we can kill half of New York City ... a slow lingering death ... painful and obvious ... a terrorist's wet dream come true ...

If you really understood you wouldn't be asking me now to simply repeat myself. I support the technologies that not only burn up (rid us of) heavy, long half-life nuclides such as plutonium, but all the "spent fuel rods" to boot. That's kind of hard to argue with, given it's truly, safely, and practically possible.

 

[alang1216]

One downside of gas is that it is a finite resource.

Not really. The universe is full of it. The Sun's C-N-O cycle replenishes the Earth's atmosphere with nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon, which is aggressively captured into plant matter by green growth. Vegetation decomposes into peat, coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

You're correct but that source of natural gas is exceedingly rare. I believe garbage dumps have been used but more to get rid of the gas than to use it as a resource. I don't know of any commercial plants that use gas from vegetation.

 

[justinacolmena]

You're correct but that source of natural gas is exceedingly rare. I believe garbage dumps have been used but more to get rid of the gas than to use it as a resource. I don't know of any commercial plants that use gas from vegetation.

All petroleum is ultimately from the anaerobic decomposition of green growth, depending on heat, pressure, time, and lack of oxygen.
The "carbohydrates" of woody plant materials lose oxygen to other ores and chemical reactions and become "hydrocarbons" as they are buried deep in the earth under heat and pressure over geologic time scales.

Natural diamonds (100% carbon) are also formed in veins of anthracite coal and sweet crude oil under such conditions.

 

[alang1216]

You're correct but that source of natural gas is exceedingly rare. I believe garbage dumps have been used but more to get rid of the gas than to use it as a resource. I don't know of any commercial plants that use gas from vegetation.

All petroleum is ultimately from the anaerobic decomposition of green growth, depending on heat, pressure, time, and lack of oxygen.
The "carbohydrates" of woody plant materials lose oxygen to other ores and chemical reactions and become "hydrocarbons" as they are buried deep in the earth under heat and pressure over geologic time scales.

Natural diamonds (100% carbon) are also formed in veins of anthracite coal and sweet crude oil under such conditions.

Things that take 'geologic time scales' to form are essentially finite resources. At least to man.

 

[deanrd]

Solar vs natural gas what do you think?

I think there is room for both.
It's not just solar and wind.
There are kinetic generators that use ocean waves and I even saw plates under sidewalks that produce power from people walking. Every step can generate enough power to light an LED for 30 seconds.
Stop listening to Republicans. Think about what we can do and not what they imagine we can't.
Look what they did to the economy under Bush and Trump. Look how they blew controlling this pandemic. Turn to science and technology. Trump is wrong, scientists are NOT idiots.

Kinetic pavements are giving a whole new meaning to ‘power walking’ | OVO Energy

How about this for smart technology? Pedestrians around the world could soon generate energy simply by walking to work or taking an afternoon stroll, thanks to ‘kinetic pavements’ that turn footsteps into electricity

www.ovoenergy.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Iceland thrives on geothermal.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option

Ecologist: It produces less radioactive waste and more power but it remains unproven on a commercial scale

www.theguardian.com