Don Y snipped-for-privacy@foo.invalid wrote in news:sv53c7$9lp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
He was to play comedic roles ever since this film, but this film was a serious role.
I had this on Laser Disc, DVD, HD-DVD, and BluRay. I even had the canned HD DVD release which contained a small robbie the robot in it. All stolen from me.
Mike Monett snipped-for-privacy@not.com wrote in news:XnsAE4741A47FDAFidtokenpost@
144.76.35.252:
How is it "clear"? Damn I hate stupid twerps downplaying scientific advancement. Are you Larkin's brother?
Your mother claiming you were human was a fraud, because CLEARLY you are a piece of shit.
Freaking Foul Fool
The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.
Fission is sensible but scares people.
We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly nasty.
Europe is the big regressive experiment in energy poverty.
Covered, yes. Covered fallaciously.
Part of the point is that the chart is covering periods of burning cow dung for heat as well as energy consumption from nuclear power. There is nothing that can be learned from such a comparison and no general trend is valid. What is significant, is that *world wide* energy consumption has nearly leveled off over the last 50 years, increasing perhaps 15% while the population has doubled. Yeah, that's a real trend.
You are citing a mythical "exponential" increase of something, but what??? Certainly not energy. That's nearly at a constant level now. Population is still increasing, but no longer exponentially and we can expect it to level off at some point in the relatively near future. So where does this imaginary exponential increase come from???
That is the gist of the argument and is also the clear fallacy. "Economic growth" does not depend on energy growth.
This won't be a problem. If one has unlimited energy, it's easy to mine the junkyards and recycle everything.
Why isn't this already done? Because pulling the components of an alloy apart is more expensive than mining new material from ore. With free electricity, one can separate metallic elements by electrolysis, as is done in the refining of copper and the production of aluminum.
Joe Gwinn
It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, sorry.
Jeroen Belleman
Huh? Doesn't the sun shine where you are?
Same as Edison's light bulb in year one, or Volta's battery in year 100
Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
ITER is a test bed; it 'works' if it gives test results, it isn't intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the parts in the display, and attached computer, that's in front of you now?
That's all very weak argument.
You are right of course but he made a good point about the small fission reactors which we can have in mass production for many years now. I remember about 20 years ago some announcement of a Toshiba reactor, lasting for 30 years without being refueled. I then did a rough cost calculation and it was at least twice cheaper to have it power a village (and the prices here in Bulgaria were really low). Someone had posted it to the radsafe mailing list, don't know what happened to the design, did it really work, was it killed off for political reasons etc. but it surely looked good.
How was a cost for the device produced? A single-use reactor would have minimal operating expense, mostly the capital investment amortization. So the initial cost is important to know accurately.
Whenever I think about the cost of new nuclear facilities, it makes me remember that the Westinghouse nuclear company going bankrupt. They were driven bankrupt by the attempt to build new reactors in South Carolina. That says a lot about nuclear regardless of the prospects of a new version of reactor. It is hard to get anyone to invest in them at this point, at least in the US.
ITER is intended to achieve significant energy over it's own operating requirements. I see the number 500 MW tossed around. Given its cost, that may not be a goal for practical electrical generating system, but it's pretty durn good! If they can lower the cost, fusion will become *the* energy source for virtually all needs. But they will need to *seriously* lower the cost of the installation.
I read recently that the core is in sections which have to be welded together. Some of them were dropped, yes, DROPPED, so that they have to be assembled differently. This is requiring different inspection and approvals now, so they are held up until this can be addressed.
"Hey! Watch out! Don't drop that! It's expensive!!!"
I've made low-noise analogue electronic products, semi-custom digital products, radio propagation, and many incidental things including system design tradeoffs. Plus hard realtime and soft realtime software.
I can't be bothered to trawl the s.e.d. archives to find something you would ignore.
Irrelevant w.r.t. black body radiation, of course.
Gedankenexperimenten are /always/ "fabricated"; they have to be!
I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.
You were insulting.
Lies confirmed.
Not much on thermal issues, are you?
I don't initiate insults. You did.
Go back to typing.
Only the post-Keynesian ones, The clowns that tout the Laffer curve have your support and admiration.
Bizarre idea. The people who point out that you post nonsense aren't being dishonest or obsessive, even if yopu'd prefer this to be true. <snipped more nonsense>
The guy who isn't worried by the fact that that burning fossil carbon for fuel has pushed up the atmospheric CO2 level from from 270ppm to it;s current 412.5 ppm isn't worried about dangerously radioactive nuclear waste that needs to be isolated for a couple of hundred thousand years, when we still haven't got any kind of repository that could do that, when it has been a known problem for about seventy years now.
Natural gas is half as nasty, and there's only a finite amount in the ground, so it isn't going to stay cheap
Australia is also dumping it's coal fired electricity generating plants in favour of wind farms and solar cells. Quite what's "regressive" about that escapes me.
The solar cells got a lot more popular recently when the University of New South Wales invented an improved solar cell that made slightly more efficient use of the sunlight hitting it, and could be manufactured cheaply in very high volume (which the Chinese have been doing for about five years now).
Renewable power is now appreciably cheaper than the power you get by burning fossil carbon, and the local coal miners are playing dirty politics in the hope that they can get their income to taper off a bit more slowly.
Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.
Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
True, but burning fossil carbon isn't the only way to get it.
Really? They haven't built enough renewable generation capacity yet (or the grid storage that it takes to cover the gaps when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing) but the experiment is in full swing, and it does seem to be a positive and constructive approach, though the people who have been making a lot of money out of selling fossil carbon as fuel aren't fond of it, and spend money on lying propaganda that our gullible John Larkin does lap up.
Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.
This is the classical pump and dump scheme.
True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.
TMSR's are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.
Fossile fuels produce CO2.
Researchers make claims about promising approaches from time to time.
Name one.
https://hb11.energy/
Example?
It would be, if it happened.
But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing heat that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got flooded and stopped working.
Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have with a regular nuclear reactor.
Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can undergo nuclear fission.
Until they aren't.
If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.
But John Larkin has been persuaded that this doesn't matter.
Mike Monett snipped-for-privacy@not.com wrote in news:XnsAE47EFDE9A370idtokenpost@
144.76.35.252:
Your retarded comments are the classical Spew and Froth Utterance Stupidity.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.