@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain

Sequestering nuclear waste?

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/palke2/

thorium reactors

http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/press-release/china-invests-big-in-clean-and-cheap-energy-from-thorium

Do you have a problem looking these things up for yourself, always wanting us to do your research for you....... That took AT LEAST 2 minutes.

Asking for something you have looked at already is not making you do research. You could have posted your source to begin with, but it seems like you want to intentionally withhold info just for mere spite and nothing more.

Your source didn't even show how much money would be saved if any. Is that why you were reluctant to post that link?

Thorium is not a proven technology yet. Why do you keep bringing this up? Create a prediction thread and confine unproven stuff there.

@metal-brain said
Asking for something you have looked at already is not making you do research. You could have posted your source to begin with, but it seems like you want to intentionally withhold info just for mere spite and nothing more.

Your source didn't even show how much money would be saved if any. Is that why you were reluctant to post that link?

Thorium is not a proven tec ...[text shortened]... yet. Why do you keep bringing this up? Create a prediction thread and confine unproven stuff there.

I posted the Thorium bit because you were vague in what you wanted in your post.

I also SAID Thorium was not fully developed and may never be, time will tell about that.

BTW, I did NOT look at that post before posting it to you, I just found it as the result of AT LEAST one minute of surfing.

Something you could do anytime but chose to be in the dark, preferring to believe in 90 year old dudes who last published some 30 years ago, so you revel in completely ignoring the last 3 decades of research.

@sonhouse said
I posted the Thorium bit because you were vague in what you wanted in your post.

I also SAID Thorium was not fully developed and may never be, time will tell about that.

BTW, I did NOT look at that post before posting it to you, I just found it as the result of AT LEAST one minute of surfing.

Something you could do anytime but chose to be in the dark, preferring to ...[text shortened]... ast published some 30 years ago, so you revel in completely ignoring the last 3 decades of research.

You are so very unreasonable sometimes. You made the claim, not me. Don't you have anything better to do than troll?

If you are referring to Fred Singer you are spreading more false information/gossip. You are embarrassing yourself.

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels---summary-for-policymakers

@metal-brain said
You are so very unreasonable sometimes. You made the claim, not me. Don't you have anything better to do than troll?

If you are referring to Fred Singer you are spreading more false information/gossip. You are embarrassing yourself.

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels---summary-for-policymakers

Your BS level grows daily. You really want to hang your hat on that site?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Fed money by Koch, who is a known climate change denier.

I am afraid it is YOU embarrassing yourself.

@sonhouse said
Your BS level grows daily. You really want to hang your hat on that site?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Fed money by Koch, who is a known climate change denier.

I am afraid it is YOU embarrassing yourself.

The documents are fake. Even if they were authentic what does it prove, that libertarians are still against global warming theory? Hardly surprising.
A carbon tax would not hurt the Koch refining profits. This is another silly conspiracy theory of yours. Being a libertarian does not make a person nefarious just because they are in the oil refining business. A carbon tax would hurt coal, not oil.

@metal-brain said
Some nations use mostly nuclear power because they have a lack of fossil fuels like Japan. For a nation rich in fossil fuels like the US to go nuclear would be foolish. It would not be cost effective when you consider the storage of nuclear waste.

Uranium should be conserved for future space travel. Our species is generally too primitive to waste uranium on energy prod ...[text shortened]... rom heating water to run a turbine steam engine. Historians will look back and think we were morons.

Remove the subsidies from coal power and see how economical it is. Right now it's the opposite of a carbon tax. Some of your tax dollars are being spent propping up a dying industry. I'd rather see those dollars go to zero emissions power sources and R & D.

Are we really at risk for running out of uranium? Surely by the time we're gallivanting around space we'll have figured out how to make breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors.

@wildgrass said
Remove the subsidies from coal power and see how economical it is. Right now it's the opposite of a carbon tax. Some of your tax dollars are being spent propping up a dying industry. I'd rather see those dollars go to zero emissions power sources and R & D.

Are we really at risk for running out of uranium? Surely by the time we're gallivanting around space we'll have figured out how to make breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors.

Make breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors first.

@metal-brain said
Make breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors first.

Fusion is still in the works, there are developments in that field weekly, how to slow down chaotic reactions leading to plasma cooling and so forth. It is slowly coming together. Of course the problem is the word slowly. It is a very difficult problem to duplicate what goes on inside a star which makes fusion by brute force gravitation V doing it in a box 10 meters square.

@metal-brain said
Make breeder reactors and/or thorium reactors first.

Remove the subsidies for coal first. Apply the carbon tax to level the playing field. It does not cost anything above what we're currently spending to prop up a dying industry. Once that happens, the economics of nuclear will be obvious.

Its too bad that people are afraid of a low cost, 99% safe, zero emissions, small footprint source of electricity.

@sonhouse said
Fusion is still in the works, there are developments in that field weekly, how to slow down chaotic reactions leading to plasma cooling and so forth. It is slowly coming together. Of course the problem is the word slowly. It is a very difficult problem to duplicate what goes on inside a star which makes fusion by brute force gravitation V doing it in a box 10 meters square.

Controlled fusion for energy may never be practical. I hope I am wrong, but it is very difficult to replicate the conditions near the core of a star. You should consider this possibility.

@wildgrass said
Remove the subsidies for coal first. Apply the carbon tax to level the playing field. It does not cost anything above what we're currently spending to prop up a dying industry. Once that happens, the economics of nuclear will be obvious.

Its too bad that people are afraid of a low cost, 99% safe, zero emissions, small footprint source of electricity.

From the link below:

"A study by the University of Texas projected that U.S. energy subsidies per megawatt hour in 2019 would be $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas, $15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar. Many of the renewable energy subsidies come in the form of a Production Tax Credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Wholesale prices for electricity in 2017 were between approximately 2.9 cents to 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Therefore the wind production tax credit covers 30% to 60% of wholesale electricity prices."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/03/23/renewable-energy-subsidies-yes-or-no/#5e3ac4266e23

I am for removing subsidies from coal if they are removed from solar and wind, especially solar. The manufacture of solar panels causes a lot of pollution that damages the environment.

A carbon tax is an incredibly stupid idea. CO2 is helping plants grow and increases food production. It is doing far more good than harm. I can't even find any harm done from CO2 increase. You cannot either. You have had an opportunity to make your case for AGW theory on the sea level thread I created and you have failed.

Gossip is not proof. Gossip is not science. Gossip means nothing!

@metal-brain said
From the link below:

"A study by the University of Texas projected that U.S. energy subsidies per megawatt hour in 2019 would be $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas, $15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar. Many of the renewable energy subsidies come in the form of a Production Tax Credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Wholesale prices for electricit ...[text shortened]... I created and you have failed.

Gossip is not proof. Gossip is not science. Gossip means nothing!

You're off topic again. Nuclear is cheaper, safer and more efficient than coal, yet it receives fewer subsidies and slim support among politicians. You're saying the reason for that is because of the possibility of future space travel?

@metal-brain said
Controlled fusion for energy may never be practical. I hope I am wrong, but it is very difficult to replicate the conditions near the core of a star. You should consider this possibility.

Did you actually READ my post? I SAID it was very difficult to duplicate what goes on in a star run by brute force gravity to get fusion Vs doing it in a box on Earth.
What do you do, read the first 5 words then you glaze over Trump like?

@sonhouse said
Did you actually READ my post? I SAID it was very difficult to duplicate what goes on in a star run by brute force gravity to get fusion Vs doing it in a box on Earth.
What do you do, read the first 5 words then you glaze over Trump like?

Difficult is an understatement. It may very well be impossible to get enough energy out of it to be worth it. Are you incapable of considering that possibility?

@wildgrass said
You're off topic again. Nuclear is cheaper, safer and more efficient than coal, yet it receives fewer subsidies and slim support among politicians. You're saying the reason for that is because of the possibility of future space travel?

Wrong. I am on topic since you brought up subsidies.

You have not proven nuclear is cheaper. Coal is generally cheaper. Are you claiming the Bloomberg article I posted is false? I have shown how estimates can be manipulated. I suppose that is false too.
If you will not accept my sources of info why should I accept yours? I don't see any reason to continue this. You have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts.

Go ahead and promote nuclear. I don't care. As you said, it has little support.