ReinyDays
Gold Member
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? ...
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.
we weren't talking just about one small town. well maybe you were
Okay, I've taken you off ignore (and only you so far) because I respect your brain. Well said.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" ...
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!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!
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.One downside of gas is that it is a finite resource.
So was I. Eisenhower wasn't kidding around while warning against given the MIC too much free reign.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.
Maybe so.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 ...
Getting a clue yet?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]
Thousands of square miles of solar and we get nothing from it unless the sun is shining and someone cleans the panels regularly....
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? ...
Getting a clue yet?
Note: I said "free reign" above in error. I meant to say "free rein" and "giving" not "given." Sorry.
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.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.
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.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 ...
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.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.One downside of gas is that it is a finite resource.
All petroleum is ultimately from the anaerobic decomposition of green growth, depending on heat, pressure, time, and lack of oxygen.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.
Things that take 'geologic time scales' to form are essentially finite resources. At least to man.All petroleum is ultimately from the anaerobic decomposition of green growth, depending on heat, pressure, time, and lack of oxygen.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.
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.