Loading...

Nuclear energy, our only option for our future. | Forum

quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 10
I have become obsessed with the idea that humanity's WHOLE FUTURE depends on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor.

Discuss nuclear energy.
Zain_117
Zain_117 Apr 12
Well lets not put any reactors in earthquake sensitive areas
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 12
The danger of a meltdown is only present with solid fuel, pressurised water cooled reactors. In a LFTR, even damage to the reactor itself won't pose a threat because both the fuel and coolant are molten salt.
The Forum post is edited by quietpickles Apr 12
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 12
Meltdowns are not the only environmental hazard an earthquake could potentially cause. Depends on how big the quake is and how reinforced the storage is of course.

Edit: Not gonna lie, this list is WAAAAY too long too. https://en.wikipedia.org/...ride_thorium_reactor
The Forum post is edited by Mattwo Apr 12
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 13
A lot of those stem down to one of two things: "We haven't done this before" and "We're doing those procedures like we would with U-235 PWRs", and others are based on the MSRE. The design of the MSRE was brilliant, but A) it never actually ran on thorium, despite being designed to do so, and B) it was built in the early 1960s, and if you've noticed it's not the early 1960s anymore. A modern thorium MSR wouldn't be a straight upscale of the MSRE, just like a 1949 Ford isn't just a scaled up Model A.  It was and still is brilliant, but we can do better.
Plus, proliferation risk is at about 1%, considering whenever you make U-233 you're always also making U-232, whose decay products give off alpha and gamma emissions, not only that but they tried U-233 in bomb making during the Manhattan Project and it fizzled.
The possibility of mishandling the molten salts and having some deaths is there, but that's operator error. We don't blame the car for the inexperienced driver getting in a wreck.
Also, you're really using Wikipedia?
The Forum post is edited by quietpickles Apr 13
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 14
https://www.theguardian.com/...rium-nuclear-uranium and apparently, that's coming from a left leaning source.
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 15

Quote from Mattwo https:///...rium-nuclear-uranium and apparently, that's coming from a left leaning source.
Well, yeah. Greenpeace is also left leaning, isn't it? I don't take liberals to be a group that fond of nuclear power. And yeah it's unproven on a commercial scale, due to no commercial reactors having been built before, but the thorium cycle was proven in an experiment at Shippingport and the molten salt reactor was proven with the MSRE. And I'm certainly wondering how much research they did, considering the AEC also passed on thorium since it was too different from the PWR. There was a more credible source  they would have found to quote if they did about half an hour of research, but they picked some guy from an anti-nuke organisation.

They even undermine their own claims with this sentence: "Proponents counter that the NNL paper fails to address the question of MSR technology, evidence of its bias towards an industry wedded to PWRs".
The Forum post is edited by quietpickles Apr 15
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 15

Quote from quietpickles
Quote from Mattwo https:///...rium-nuclear-uranium and apparently, that's coming from a left leaning source.
Well, yeah. Greenpeace is also left leaning, isn't it? I don't take liberals to be a group that fond of nuclear power. And yeah it's unproven on a commercial scale, due to no commercial reactors having been built before, but the thorium cycle was proven in an experiment at Shippingport and the molten salt reactor was proven with the MSRE. And I'm certainly wondering how much research they did, considering the AEC also passed on thorium since it was too different from the PWR. There was a more credible source  they would have found to quote if they did about half an hour of research, but they picked some guy from an anti-nuke organisation.

They even undermine their own claims with this sentence: "Proponents counter that the NNL paper fails to address the question of MSR technology, evidence of its bias towards an industry wedded to PWRs".

Funny, I thought the Green Party was liberal, wouldn't they be open to a clean alternative power source, nuclear or not? Seems kind of fishy to me.
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 15

Quote from Mattwo
Quote from quietpickles
Quote from Mattwo https:///...rium-nuclear-uranium and apparently, that's coming from a left leaning source.
Well, yeah. Greenpeace is also left leaning, isn't it? I don't take liberals to be a group that fond of nuclear power. And yeah it's unproven on a commercial scale, due to no commercial reactors having been built before, but the thorium cycle was proven in an experiment at Shippingport and the molten salt reactor was proven with the MSRE. And I'm certainly wondering how much research they did, considering the AEC also passed on thorium since it was too different from the PWR. There was a more credible source  they would have found to quote if they did about half an hour of research, but they picked some guy from an anti-nuke organisation.

They even undermine their own claims with this sentence: "Proponents counter that the NNL paper fails to address the question of MSR technology, evidence of its bias towards an industry wedded to PWRs".

Funny, I thought the Green Party was liberal, wouldn't they be open to a clean alternative power source, nuclear or not? Seems kind of fishy to me.
No, to liberals the word nuclear is ALWAYS preceding the words bomb or meltdown and spraying green shit everywhere. They prefer the nearly identical geothermal power because there haven't been any reported deaths.
The Forum post is edited by quietpickles Apr 15
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 15

Quote from quietpicklesNo, to liberals the word nuclear is ALWAYS preceding the words bomb or meltdown and spraying green shit everywhere.
Poor choice of words, last I checked I was left leaning myself and if that were true with me, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Because you said that in such a close-minded generalizing manner, it really sounds to me like you're willfully blinding yourself to the Liberal viewpoint on the matter.
The Forum post is edited by Mattwo Apr 15
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 15

Quote from Mattwo
Quote from quietpicklesNo, to liberals the word nuclear is ALWAYS preceding the words bomb or meltdown and spraying green shit everywhere.
Poor choice of words, last I checked I was left leaning myself and if that were true with me, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Because you said that in such a close-minded generalizing manner, it really sounds to me like you're willfully blinding yourself to the Liberal viewpoint on the matter.
How big of a market is left-leaners that don't associate nuke with Hiroshima, though? Sure, I did generalise, but by how much was I wrong?
The Forum post is edited by quietpickles Apr 15
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 15
Probably a large chunk of the Japanese left I'd imagine, probably a good deal of the Japanese regressive right too, though they probably might just be faking it to promote a racist agenda, I dunno, idk about Japanese politics anyway. Doubt they're really too much different as far as the left and right go anyway.
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 22

Quote from Mattwo Probably a large chunk of the Japanese left I'd imagine, probably a good deal of the Japanese regressive right too, though they probably might just be faking it to promote a racist agenda, I dunno, idk about Japanese politics anyway. Doubt they're really too much different as far as the left and right go anyway.
???
So because of a racist agenda, the Japanese right don't associate nuclear power with the atomic bomb? Is that true?

Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 22

Quote from Mattwo I dunno, idk about Japanese politics anyway.

The Forum post is edited by Mattwo Apr 22
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 22
Why bring it up then? I didn't. Whatever, though, we're getting off topic by now. The article you cited only looked at the thorium cycle in a solid fuel reactor. This was tested once at Shippingport in the 1960s, but that was all it was. They knew that solid fuel reactors wouldn't be able to do the thorium cycle justice, they were just testing to make sure it wasn't just theoretical.
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 22

Quote from quietpickles Why bring it up then? I didn't.
Because you keep bringing up Hiroshima and atom bombs, obviously.
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 25

Quote from Mattwo
Quote from quietpickles Why bring it up then? I didn't.
Because you keep bringing up Hiroshima and atom bombs, obviously.
As the event relates to U.S. politics. I can't imagine a good chunk of the U.S. left learning about atomic bombs in school and later on saying they support nuclear power.
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 25

Quote from quietpickles
Quote from Mattwo
Quote from quietpickles Why bring it up then? I didn't.
Because you keep bringing up Hiroshima and atom bombs, obviously.
As the event relates to U.S. politics. I can't imagine a good chunk of the U.S. left learning about atomic bombs in school and later on saying they support nuclear power.
Way to prove your generalization was fallacious all along. Should have just admitted you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.
quietpickles
quietpickles Apr 25

Quote from Mattwo
Quote from quietpickles
Quote from Mattwo
Quote from quietpickles Why bring it up then? I didn't.
Because you keep bringing up Hiroshima and atom bombs, obviously.
As the event relates to U.S. politics. I can't imagine a good chunk of the U.S. left learning about atomic bombs in school and later on saying they support nuclear power.
Way to prove your generalization was fallacious all along. Should have just admitted you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I'm sorry I didn't bring my cross-country polling machine to cities. Let's see what a real poll says.
Gallup poll:
47% of Republicans support nuclear, v. 24% of Democrats in 2015.
Otherwise knowm as exactly what I said.
http://www.gallup.com/...-nuclear-energy.aspx
Mattwo
Mattwo Apr 27
You're still making large assumptions as to why this is. I mean Hiroshima and bombs? Really? Isn't it also entirely possible that they simply have an issue with nuclear energy not being good for the environment? Not to mention that this says nothing about the specific type of nuclear energy you are talking about which, unless I am being mislead, is apparently safer and cleaner, making the entire poll entirely irrelevant to this particular conversation.

Come back when you have evidence that can properly support your claims.
The Forum post is edited by Mattwo Apr 27
Pages: 1 2 »