[OT] Thorium reactor with LFT Reactor as a viable nuclear

This is way off topic, but a few months back I was speaking with
someone who was into green technologies.

I never did quiet catch his name, but he seemed puzzled why I was big
on promoting Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors as
the future of nuclear.

Here is a IEEE spectrum article (the links the article has as
resources are even better) which make the case better than I could.
I am not a nuclear physicist nor engineer. The people cited in this
IEEE article are.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future

This video is specifically useful in explaining the LFTR position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

I'll spare you the election literature that I have had up for sometime
for a particular candidate in regards to this technology.

Respectfully,
Andrew McElroy

Did you not watch the video?
It's vastly more safe than the current nuclear paradigm.

Saying things eventually go wrong is like saying why bother with
computers, things
eventually go wrong. There is risk in anything.
I'd like to see 1 gigawatt hydrogen plant be anywhere close to as safe
as a LFTR plant.

Actually, I'd settle for seeing a 1 gigawatt hydrogen plant in the first place.

There is a hard limit to any kind of battery or cell.
This hard limit is imposed by chemistry. To mutilate Clinton's '92 slogan:
"It's the energy density, stupid."

This is why for now oil has remained king.
Oil is very energy dense. In fact more so than nearly anything else.

As much as I'd love a future that is distributed that didn't require a grid,
It seems about as realistic as teleportation.

I'd like to see this on a large scale.

Everything.

Andrew McElroy

The fastest way to get money for it would be to say that the terrorist
will do it if we don't.
Either that or say that's where Wikileaks staff is hiding.

Andrew
> Andy
>

Bill, this group has got into some very heated discussions in the past
but I believe you're stepping over the line into personal attacks.

Rich

I will never say that nukes are 'safe', but the thorium option does
seem much more
'atoms for peace friendly' than the uranium methodology we are currently using.

The self scramming aspect of the thorium reactor seem especially
nice/safe to me.

High level energy in any form is inherently dangerous. We just need
to choose the
lesser of the evils, and this one could be economically beneficial as well.

I agree, it is the energy density, especially when addressing
transportation issues.
Tracked vehicles (trains, trolleys, and subways, not armored tanks)
can make good use
of electricity easily. Other than that, petrol will be around for a
long time. Electricity
is good, but petrol took over in the early 1900's and will stay king
for a long time.
Electricity is coming in as a nice also-ran and will get better
incrementally over time.

Hydrogen is nice, but it has some current handling and storage issues,
plus we have
way to many video's of the Hindenburg that people still think they
remember seeing.
Few will recognize the Hindenburg was basically painted with the same
stuff that we
put into the shuttle assist rockets (an aluminum oxide) so when there
was a fire it
went up like a rocket! :) ... still neat films, bad publicity and pop science.

Storing enough hydrogen to power a plant for a few days that generates 1GW
scares me until we get some better technology for managing it. Current folks
that work at power plants would definitely need retraining :)

Time to go burn some petrol and let someone else feed us tonight. ... Later.

><> ... Jack
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart... Colossians 3:23

-------Original Email-------
Subject :Re: [nlug] [OT] Thorium reactor with LFT Reactor as a viable nuclear
From :mailto:woody...@gmail.com
Date :Thu Aug 12 14:36:56 America/Chicago 2010

To post to this group, send email to nlug...@googlegroups.com <mailto:nlug...@googlegroups.com>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+...@googlegroups.com <mailto:nlug-talk%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

In the long run we will need a sustainable base load energy source.
I have no missed any points. We are talking about different energy usages.
Thorium could be an answer for muni or industrial power needs.
BTW 1 gigawatt is not some magical number. There is a reason why I am
specifically targeting that energy quantity. Hint: Base Load.

It has a lot to do with it. Again I am not a Nuclear physics or Engineer.
I am not even an electrical engineer. However, I do know addition.
I have yet to see how Hydrogen can be a baseload power source.

My whole point is base load. period.

How does this address base load?
If you have to resort to ad hominem attacks then it is merely a sign
of a weak argument.
I get the sense that some individuals may be financially invested in
Hydrogen, thus the animosity.
Just Saying (TM).

I have already disclosed my interest in Thorium and LFTR. :-)

Andrew McElroy

Now there is something we could do, is to use Nuc energy to combine
CO2 with hydrogen and put it back into the pipe lines. This way it
will temporarily sequester the carbon until the new natural gas
(methane) is burned. And we already have an infrastructure in place
to transport natural gas fairly efficiently.