Slashdot Mirror

Because the US foolishly abandoned it 50 years ago? China now has an aggressive LFTR program based upon our own extensive research, which is openly available. Once they put the finishing touches on it, they can lock us out by using our own regressive system for monopolizing ideas. Some make a habit of displacing their feelings onto China, but I'm having a difficult time blaming them for our own spectacular stupidity here. I'd suggest directing that anger at our own government for the stagnation of nuclear technology for several decades, helped by "environmental" groups in an unholy alliance with coal and now natural gas.

TerraPower's TWR didn't work out as envisioned, and is no great loss. Research on the MCFR is more promising, but the chloride chemistry is less developed, and it requires 10-15 times more fissile, which is very expensive. China is already pursing the better option, and have little use for it, nor is it the only fast MSR in development. LFTR needs only a small amount of fissile to start up, which could be affordably extracted from spent fuel, enabling a rapid expansion of nuclear power, while also eliminating the waste "problem".

Exactly...also the Sierra Club has been getting funding from fossil fuels for some time

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7277

Or wipes out competing plants entirely. I read a book last month by Paolo Bacigalupi called The Windup Girl which involved a world where multinational conglomerates owned the genetic codes for engineered plants, and engineered plants were all that was left.

Pretty scary that things are getting even this close to that.

I agree with reading about it on the Internet. I like RSS, but I've found it homogenizes my content so that things don't jump out at me and the really interesting stories get buried with all the mediocre ones. So I keep the following list of bookmarks to check on a weekly basis:

ABC (Australia) Science, ABC (US) Science, Air & Space Magazine, ARKive, Ars Technica, BBC SciTech News, CBS Sci-Tech News, Chet Raymo, Cosmos News, Current: Science, Discover, Discovery News, Edge, Economist Science, EurekAlert!, Flyp media, Futurity, h+, Inkling Magazine, LiveScience, Massimo Pigliucci, Mother Jones Environment, MSNBC Science News, National Geographic News, National Public Radio (US), Natural History Magazine, New Scientist, New York Times Science, New Yorker Science, Newsweek Science, Orion, PhysOrg, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, R&D Magazine, Ripley's Believe It or Not!, Science Daily, Scientific American, Seed Magazine, Science Cheerleader, Science News, Schrodinger's Kitten, Slashdot Science, Smithsonian, Space.com, The Technium, Time Magazine Science, USA Today Science, US News & World Report Science, Wired News, World Changing

To help the now-wealthy to become yet more wealthy, or help all of humanity to avert climate disaster and live in a cleaner environment? Hmmmm decisions, decisions ...

You can make all the difference. Just turn off your water when you brush and compost your garbage... suckers.

Most of the flotsam there consists of small particles that are distributed in the first 10m of the water column. What would need to be done is to filter it out and bind it similar to how pebbles are bound with cement to create concrete to create large enough bits that can be combined into an island.

Eventually we (the world community) will have to clear this patch as the plastics now enter the food chain and threaten to poison us all. Already there are areas in the ocean where plastic is more prevalent than krill and plastic is being ingested by marine animals, accumulating in higher organisms and ultimately in us too.

Collecting plastic there would be a nice occupation for all those fishermen that have been made redundant due to overfishing and the necessities to conserve fish stocks. Get them to fish plastic instead and pay them for the trash catch they return.

Two articles on that matter, a bit lengthy but worth your time:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/270
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Moore-Trashed-PacificNov03.htm

Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces. Storms come and go. Icecaps expand and shrink. Glaciers advance and recede. Species thrive and decline. Get over it.

There is a difference between climate change alarmism and acceptance of anthropomorphic climate change. Due to the shoddy nature of science reporting, and the credulous attidude of many, the two have been confused.

Anthropomorphic climate change is the idea that humans, and more specifically, human industrial output, is having a measurable and significant effect on the climate of the earth. This argument is not so far away from the argument that industry has an effect on the environment, which is obviously true. The difference here is that anthropomorphic climate change states that the effects of human industry are now on a global scale. It's important to note at this point that climate scientists have the evidence to prove these claims.

Proponents of the idea of anthropomorphic climate change usually advocate measures to halt or reduce the effect of humans on the environment. There are adverse effects to climate change, as well as some beneficial ones, but ultimately they argue that we as a society should practice good husbandry and not risk causing adverse effects for ourselves or for others. A swift change in global or regional climates is ultimately in no ones best interests, and of least interest of all to our environment.

Climate change alarmism is different. Global warming alarmists typically take the most spectacular, alarming, devastating and ultimately least likely potential outcomes of climate change and loudly proclaim their inevitability. Usually, they advocate personal efforts by individuals. (but not by industry, ho hum). It's easy to dismiss many of their claims.

But dismissing alarmism is often extrapolated out to dismissing anthropomorphic climate change as a whole. You really shouldn't do this. The effects of climate change may not be worthy of a hollywood spectacle, but they will be real and probably permanent. If a few million of hectares of scrubland are turned to desert, or forests turn to grassland, or if your summers are too wet or too hot, of if a few species become extinct, or if your children will never be able to build a snowman, then it is true that you will not have lost a lot objectively. But you will have lost something. And needlessly.

You mentioned in your post that "Species thrive and decline." This is true, but species can and have been declined or destroyed not by natural causes but by the effect of human industry. Consider whales. Fished to the point of, and in effect probably to, extinction not by any natural cause, but by the will of human societies and industry. I think it's safe to say that no one wanted this to happen, but it did anyway and we cannot ever undo this. The greater tragedy is that is need never have happened.

It's the same with climate change. A few degrees may not sound like a lot to most people, but it is a big change. The earth will pull through, but it will be a slightly different place. But Things and places will be lost to us forever. And they will be lost not because we as a society did nothing, but because we refused to stop doing things which we could easily have done without. That doesn't sound like a lot of progress to me.

controversy n:

• 1. A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. See synonyms at argument.
• 2. The act or practice of engaging in such disputes: writers skilled at controversy.

Regarding the OP's main point. Is there in fact controversy over Phorm? Is there a dispute between two sides holding opposite views. I would argue with the OP and say there is not.

Not certainly it looks like there is a dispute. But realistically, it's all just mummery or controversy theater if you will. The mainstream media is playing lip service to the hundreds of thousands of people who are against this system, and Phorm is simply ignoring them and banking on the fact that the rest of the population will be too busy to even notice.

There is not one brass null's iota of justification for the Phorm system. They can target ads more effectively? So what! No one even wants ads in the first place, so why should they have to put up with marketers and governments tracking their online habits? There is no opposing view here. Phorm do not have an opinion. They are businessmen for whom anything not illegal is a legitimate way to make money, regardless of its effect on society.

There is no dispute. The purpose of this controversy theater is so that at a later date when Phorm is implemented it can be shown to have passed a "gauntlet" of public opinion and scrutiny and not found wanting. In reality, it will have paid for a few PR releases and banked on the fact that at the time the media was more interested in dead celebrities than the foundation of its free society.

The media is to blame for this. If rules limiting the amount of sport, gossip and leisure stories were enforced, we would have better watchdogs. Blaming individuals is not the proper answer. Just like the financial industry, the newspaper industry cannot be allowed to regulate itself.

Freedom of speech means nothing if people only talk tripe.

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.

I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.

in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...

Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.

Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?

When did I say you didn't?

I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.

Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.

• Coal-to-liquids: "It's a Syn
• Clean Coal: "McCain, Obama, and Clean Coal"
• Rural Subsidies

And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.

You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.

BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.

Oops I cut and pasted wrong, NanoSolar.

Nanosolar gets government subsidies

Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.

Falcon

A massive country wide nuclear power plant building spree would need to take place. Right now we have over 100 nuke plants that supply 20% of our electricity

Nuclear power isn't needed. By 2050 solar power could provide 69% of the US's electrical needs. Wind can also supply a lot, I read where the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the lower 48 states but I didn't find a reference. Then a lot of waste heat goes up smokestacks daily. Here's a quote from TFA: "Here's a Maxwell House coffee roaster in Duval County. They're roasting beans, so all that heat has to go somewhere. About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack." In Hawaii about 30% of the big Island's, Puna, is from geothermal power. Geothermal sources produced about 13,000 gigawatt hours in California in 2007, with more available.

Add all these together and every coal fired plant should be able to be closed without any more nuclear power plants being built and still have plenty of electricity.

Falcon

About the only thing I agree with McCain on is that we need one heck of a lot more nuclear power plants.

I totally disagree with McCain, and you, on this. More nuclear power plants are not needed, and those in operation now can be shutdown. Sciam has the article "A Solar Grand Plan" explaining how solar power can provide "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." Then the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind energy potential of the continental US. The Rocky Mountains alone contains enough potential wind power. A sizable portion of energy can be sourced by geothermal sources as well. Then there's recoverable waste heat. Many megawatts of wasted heat goes up smoke stacks daily. But possibly the biggest source of energy is the negawatt, energy that's not needed. Combined with tidal and other energy sources there is no need for nuclear power plants.

But our global diplomatic stance, Iraq (drawing down), Afghanistan (stepping it up), health care, taxes, net neutrality, education, Supreme Court nominations, transparency and information availability from government - all of these are why I'm voting for Obama.

These are the same reasons I currently support Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate. If the election were today or tomorrow I'd vote for Barr. But between McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama.

And with all the NIMBYs out there, nobody is willing to build new and needed Hydro Electric, Nuclear, Coal powered plants anytime soon.

Neither more nuclear nor coal plants are needed. In December 2007 SciAm had an article, "A Solar Grand Plan" saying that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the USA's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy. Then the Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential wind power to supply the lower 48 states with electricity. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the potential wind power of sites throughout the 48 states. TFA "The Unsung Solution" in "Orion Magazine" goes over waste heat that can be used to produce more electricity. But you're right about NIMBYs, they are working to stop offshore wind farms. Though the Mid Atlantic states have good sites for offshore wind farms NIMBYs are doing what they can to stop wind farms in places like Cape Hatteras. Geothermal energy also offers good energy potential.

And this is where you stop getting taken seriously. Our energy consumption is only going to go up. What is needed is better ways to generate electricity, e.g.: nuclear power.

It's you who isn't serious. Conservative can work. But as you say energy consumption is going up. That's because more and more people are getting more and more energy inefficient appliances. People buy more and more because they think it will make them happier, however they never really are. A lot of people say they can't get by with only one job, but if they cut their consumption they don't need as much money. However that doesn't take into consideration other energy sources.

For instance right now, the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details areas of the US that are good sites for wind farms. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. And there are a number of other good wind sites. When California had those rolling blackouts several years ago, a wind farm in southern CA capable of generating several megawatts of power sat idle when it have been supplying electricity to the grid. Why was it idle? Because Con Edison nor anyone else would lay the power lines to the farm. NAMBYs, so called environmentalists, in the northeast and midatlantic are trying to prevent wind farms from being erected offshore. From Massachusetts to North Carolina there are good sites for wind farms offshore. Then from southern CA east through AZ and NM to Texas, besides wind, it's good for solar power. Florida is also good.

Also there's something not many have thought of, waste heat. Gigawatts of lost energy goes up smokestacks everyday. "About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack" of a "Maxwell House coffee roaster in Duval County", Florida plant. With tens of 1,000s smokestacks in the US that's a lot of energy lost.

Quite simply nuclear power is not needed.

The first is localized ground/surface water pollution. The water pulled from deep geothermal springs has many chemicals dissolved in it that are not normally found in high concentrations in surface waters

Fossil water isn't needed. Actually water may not be the best carrier of heat to use, but if used water doesn't need to be pumped up. A closed loop can pump surface water down where it is heated up then it comes back up where a heat pump then extracts the heat.

Extra heat must be dispelled from some point in the power plant to maintain a thermal gradient. Efficiency requires a high level of heat transfer, so the excess heat will have to be dumped into the environment.

What extra heat? Where you see "waste heat", I see another energy source. And efficiency requires more of that heat energy to be extracted. If the water is hot it still has plenty of energy that can be used.

If direct ejection into freshwater systems is not feasible, then the water will have to be cooled in a cooling tower,

In a closed loop the cooled water is just pumped back down where it picks up more heat before coming back up. If the water still has heat before being pumped back down then 1, more energy can be extracted or 2, it won't need to heat up as much but this isn't as efficient as the first option. Also where it's cold cogeneration can be used. The heated water can be used to heat building as is done in Iceland. Oh, I see you mention it later. Another place that use cogeneration systems like this is NYC.