Environment & Energy

longship

(40,416 posts)

11. Agreed in practice, but not in principle

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:58 PM

Apr 2012

There are designs of nuke power generation that are maintenance free and non-polluting. Fucking NASA has been using them for decades and they haven't had maintenance for the entire time. Voyager is currently leaving the solar system and NASA can still communicate with it.

There are two companies who have designs for such power generation that could supply power to a community for decades without any maintenance. I would want to look into that, if only to see if we could make it safe and effective.

Liquid thorium reactors show promise without the waste problem of uranium. That would be a very important advance which could solve the energy problems without causing additional global climate change.

Why the fuck wouldn't anybody want to pursue these paths?

The only reason is that they do not understand nuclear physics, and are afraid because all they know is nuclear bombs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 30-year itch America�s nuclear industry struggles to get off the floor [View all] kristopher Apr 2012 OP

obsolete technology. end our obsession with war and go alternative energy big time nt msongs Apr 2012 #1

As usual, public opinion lags the science longship Apr 2012 #2

Why do you think we need nuclear power... kristopher Apr 2012 #3

Several reasons longship Apr 2012 #4

So you believe in "The Baseload Myth"? kristopher Apr 2012 #6

Okay! How do you store energy? longship Apr 2012 #9

You say "this is basic science"? kristopher Apr 2012 #10

Jesus Christ! You still don't understand real time demand! longship Apr 2012 #13

I understand real time demand extremely well. kristopher Apr 2012 #15

You don't understand the main issue here longship Apr 2012 #18

I told you the answer - it is the same answer we use now, a grid. kristopher Apr 2012 #20

Where is the fucking storage in this fucking grid? longship Apr 2012 #21

I asked where you are getting your information kristopher Apr 2012 #22

Okay, let's assume that longship Apr 2012 #25

You clearly do not "hate nuclear power" kristopher Apr 2012 #26

What forms of renewable energy do you have at your house? XemaSab Apr 2012 #33

I agree that we will need nuclear power johnd83 Apr 2012 #5

Agreed. Nuke power tech is antiquated. longship Apr 2012 #7

They have been researched. kristopher Apr 2012 #8

Agreed in practice, but not in principle longship Apr 2012 #11

Thorium has a host of its own problems kristopher Apr 2012 #12

That is precisely why we need To fund research longship Apr 2012 #16

Solar and wind do not have to do it alone kristopher Apr 2012 #19

Propaganda? longship Apr 2012 #23

You aren't quoting science, you are quoting propaganda. kristopher Apr 2012 #24

You obviously do not want to have a meaningful discussion longship Apr 2012 #27

You aren't engaging in a discussion. kristopher Apr 2012 #28

These are my view of the facts. Tell me where I am mistaken. longship Apr 2012 #29

I've already answered that... kristopher Apr 2012 #30

Blah, blah, blah, blah longship Apr 2012 #31

The current grid operates almost entirely on stored energy... kristopher Apr 2012 #32

The fucking grid does not store power longship Apr 2012 #34

And yet you DO RECOMMEND AND ENDORSE NUCLEAR kristopher Apr 2012 #35

That's enough longship Apr 2012 #36

That's a lot easier than actually addressing the information... kristopher Apr 2012 #37

Voyager is not really a good example johnd83 Apr 2012 #14

the real problem is the enormous cost... of nuclear energy kristopher Apr 2012 #17