Why does no one talk about the real green energy? - Social Anxiety Forum
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-05-2019, 05:25 PM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead

Why does no one talk about the real green energy?


Research and funding towards thorium nuclear reactors needs to be increased 10000%. The lack of waste, the safety, and the carbon reduction blows absolutely every thing else out of the water. Wind power, solar power. The cost of production and carbon emissions caused by them outweigh thorium nuclear reactions.


Why doesn't anyone talk about this? Why do these green new deal activists say **** all about about it. I'm convinced these pro environment people are in it for political points and not real solutions

for those with short attention spans.


Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-08-2019, 10:26 PM
Greasy prospector
 
blue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The salty spitoon
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,627
My Mood: Lurking
So
Negative: Less X-Men
Positive: punching the disabled

Decisions, decisions.






And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death
Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow,
A poor player that strut's and fret's his hour upon the stage and is heard no more,
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
- Macbeth
blue2 is online now  
post #3 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 04:04 AM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead
Real solutions that don't have buzz words, boring.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
 
post #4 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 05:30 AM
Greasy prospector
 
blue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The salty spitoon
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,627
My Mood: Lurking
I'm all for it, give uranium's disabled but academic cousin a shot, but I don't have any thorium or know how to build a reactor, I think it's probably the accidents with conventional nuclear plants aswell doesn't sit well with people & it's bad publicity from the political side etc

Of course there's many politicians only paying lip service to climate change, maybe promoting more inefficient methods of clean energy that look good, they're full of $h!t for the most part & will say anything to keep sucking on the juicy taxpayers teat.






And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death
Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow,
A poor player that strut's and fret's his hour upon the stage and is heard no more,
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
- Macbeth
blue2 is online now  
post #5 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 11:02 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, UK
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Posts: 1,005
How many decades would it take to get this technology off the ground and then to build the reactors? Would it be in time to avert climate problems? If not then it's more effective to channel funding into proven technologies like solar and wind in order to make those more efficient.



I'm also very skeptical about their being no waste. The product of the fission reaction is apparently uranium-233, which is more radioactive than its heavier cousins U-235 and U-238.
ThatGuy11200 is offline  
post #6 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 01:38 PM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
How many decades would it take to get this technology off the ground and then to build the reactors? Would it be in time to avert climate problems? If not then it's more effective to channel funding into proven technologies like solar and wind in order to make those more efficient.



I'm also very skeptical about their being no waste. The product of the fission reaction is apparently uranium-233, which is more radioactive than its heavier cousins U-235 and U-238.
How many decades would it take to build enough windmills to power only LA? A hell of a lot longer, and more costly I guarantee.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
post #7 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 01:47 PM
SAS Member
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,834
I'm open to anything and everything that will get things going. People are working on ways to make the water waste recyclable which sounds great since nuclear water waste sticks around for centuries, but who knows how long that will take to come to fruition. One problem with building nuclear reactors is the insurance is through the roof, people aren't super excited to fund and insure nuclear reactors these days.
crimeclub is offline  
post #8 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 01:57 PM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
I'm open to anything and everything that will get things going. People are working on ways to make the water waste recyclable which sounds great since nuclear water waste sticks around for centuries, but who knows how long that will take to come to fruition. One problem with building nuclear reactors is the insurance is through the roof, people aren't super excited to fund and insure nuclear reactors these days.
Thorium is safer.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
post #9 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 02:34 PM
SAS Member
 
crimeclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsensical View Post
Thorium is safer.
I guess I don't know much about Thorium, if that vid is correct then I don't see why it shouldn't be considered a viable option.
crimeclub is offline  
post #10 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-09-2019, 10:37 PM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, UK
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsensical View Post
How many decades would it take to build enough windmills to power only LA? A hell of a lot longer, and more costly I guarantee.

It would take forever if you were building windmills, because windmills don't generate power; they generate flour. Wind turbines generate power. I highly doubt it would be more costly building wind turbines because the R&D is already done and the cost is falling all the time.
ThatGuy11200 is offline  
post #11 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 03:14 PM
Member
 
EmotionlessThug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York, Westbury.
Language: English
Gender: Male
Age: 26
Posts: 4,640
Humanity wasn't giving knowledge from the software engineers to have a technological concept to find an efficient way to convert advance energy that can sustain the cycle of the planet life. The cost of human service of task isn't really among the people interest, only the Multi-Agent Quantum Artificial Intelligence globally weather channel the planet temperatures and species body temperatures to conserve energy using the soft drive generating machine. The environmental adjustments come from a machine that blocks out the actual environment bio rhythm, where it clocks weather accordingly to species environmental habits.

Multi-Agent Quantum AI Computers managing humanity 24/7 using Quantum Cryptography Satellites to run a thought interval to generate cryptographic keys to refresh key information into thoughts to channel the communication 24/7.


High Authority NSA Software Engineers "We feed the Supercomputers knowledge on how to manage citizens sleep, sex, accicident, dream, health, brain, interaction, job, education, lottery, living condition, murder, death throughout the day each day."
EmotionlessThug is offline  
post #12 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 03:33 PM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimeclub View Post
I guess I don't know much about Thorium, if that vid is correct then I don't see why it shouldn't be considered a viable option.
It was abandoned early in it's development because it's impossible to weaponize thorium and we needed to pump out nuclear weapons.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
post #13 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 03:45 PM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
It would take forever if you were building windmills, because windmills don't generate power; they generate flour. Wind turbines generate power. I highly doubt it would be more costly building wind turbines because the R&D is already done and the cost is falling all the time.

If you really want to talk about the differences between relying on nuclear power and relying on "green energies" from solar and wind you only have to look at the differences between Germany and France with their infrastructure. France's power is majority nuclear, it has the lowest cost per a kwh in all of Europe. It has an extremely stable electrical grid, and has much lower carbon emissions than the Majority of Europe. Germany is only rivaled by Russia in Carbon Emissions. It has the highest cost of kwh, it experiences frequent surges and black outs in it's electrical grid. There's no way to store enough power from renewable regardless of how efficient they become in producing electricity. Massive battery cell facilities in itself have an extremely questionable cost on the ecosystem given the toxic waste they produce.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
post #14 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-14-2019, 01:19 AM
SAS Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, UK
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsensical View Post
If you really want to talk about the differences between relying on nuclear power and relying on "green energies" from solar and wind you only have to look at the differences between Germany and France with their infrastructure. France's power is majority nuclear, it has the lowest cost per a kwh in all of Europe. It has an extremely stable electrical grid, and has much lower carbon emissions than the Majority of Europe. Germany is only rivaled by Russia in Carbon Emissions. It has the highest cost of kwh, it experiences frequent surges and black outs in it's electrical grid. There's no way to store enough power from renewable regardless of how efficient they become in producing electricity. Massive battery cell facilities in itself have an extremely questionable cost on the ecosystem given the toxic waste they produce.

That's because Merkel took the populist move, after Fukushima, of shutting down Germany's nuclear reactors over night, without any infrastructure to replace it except for coal-fired power stations. She was an idiot, like many politicians whose only concern is the next election rather than the long-term future.



By the way, I'm not anti-nuclear power. What I'm opposed to is dreaming about a technology that will take decades to develop and more decades to implement. By which time we will already be stuck with several degrees of warming. Rather than continuing to build and further develop proven green technologies that don't take decades to build, and that are already becoming cheaper to use than the fossil fuels they are replacing.
ThatGuy11200 is offline  
post #15 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-14-2019, 03:48 AM Thread Starter
Is that what day it is?
 
Nonsensical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Nowhereville
Gender: Male
Age: 29
Posts: 7,898
My Mood: Dead
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 View Post
That's because Merkel took the populist move, after Fukushima, of shutting down Germany's nuclear reactors over night, without any infrastructure to replace it except for coal-fired power stations. She was an idiot, like many politicians whose only concern is the next election rather than the long-term future.



By the way, I'm not anti-nuclear power. What I'm opposed to is dreaming about a technology that will take decades to develop and more decades to implement. By which time we will already be stuck with several degrees of warming. Rather than continuing to build and further develop proven green technologies that don't take decades to build, and that are already becoming cheaper to use than the fossil fuels they are replacing.
Fair points. Thorium nuclear reactors have already been constructed though, it probably wouldn't take as long as you assume. I have no idea what the projections would be but it definitely didn't take that many decades from the first nuke dropping to the first nuclear reactor operating.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Nonsensical is offline  
post #16 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-15-2019, 06:39 AM
Gone and not returning.
 
Owlbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,663
The problem with nuclear energy is there seems to have been a shift away from it in my area in the 80s. We used to have a nuclear education program and it was canned. I met a guy who went through it, he spent his whole life working on reactors and according to him they don't have enough trained personnel anymore. So to start up nuclearization again would require a big reinvestment in training and building the brainpower as well.
Owlbear is offline  
post #17 of 17 (permalink) Old 09-22-2019, 07:37 PM
SAS Member
 
Classified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio, USA
Gender: Male
Age: 39
Posts: 8,133
While I am a fan of thorium and the next generation of nuclear reactors, molten salts at high temperatures do cause a lot of the standard pipes we currently use to corrode.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...garciadiaz.pdf

Silicone is what is used at solar thermal concentrating arrays for heat transfers.
Classified is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome