No you don't. The airwaves aren't yours just because you own some land. L1 GPS spectrum is FCC licensed to the DOD. Cell Phone microwave spectrum is FCC licensed (after paying billions in fees) to the respective cell phone operators, so no, you can't operate a cell phone jammer pretty much nowhere in the world. You can only do that if you own an island somewhere in the world where you are you own country. You're just another idiot that pretends the federal govt doesn't exist, go doing that until you get arrested and jailed for years for doing what you claim is your right.
Tens of millions of dollars for decades pay for people's careers. With very little to show for. Stop fusion research. Give molten salt thorium reactors a chance. Big difference, fusion needs scientific breakthrough. Molten Salt Thorium reactors are strictly engineering challenges, and not very difficult ones. The LFTR reactor enables mainly fissioning Uranium 233 (Th-232 -> Pa-233 -> U-233 -> fission). LFTR could run with a 3% blend of spent nuclear fuel for solid uranium reactors (AKA Nuclear Waste). LFTR output is fully fissioned (99%+) material, 81% is stable in 10 years, 19% is table in 300 years (compared to current nuclear waste that takes millenia to become stable). By mixing in spent nuclear fuel, a large fleet of LFTR reactors could burn up 100% of existing spent nuclear fuel stockpiles, while producing two orders of magnitude nuclear products than current reactors. Currently it takes 250 tons of mined uranium to fission one ton of uranium producing 1GW year of electricity. With LFTR 1 ton of Thorium produces the same 1GW year of electricity (less than 10000 tons of Thorium per year would produce close to 120% of worldwide electricity demand) ! And LFTR development could be done 30 to 40% public money and the rest private funding. Could be just a loan guarantee. Plenty of investment interest in LFTR if govt would come in and sweeten the deal just a little. While Fusion research today is 100% money invested without any expectation of medium term return at all ! But instead we're hostage to radical anti nuclear environmentalists, that want solar/wind everything, which is a solution that creates as many problems as it solves. Solar+wind might not produce any CO2 directly, but the fossil fuel peaking plants used to cover the time solar+wind shortfalls do produce twice as much CO2 as fossil baseload electricity sources. Only nuclear is CO2 free baseload electricity source !
Coal mining kills people both in accidents and black lung disease Coal burning kills people from air pollution Coal ash piles spillage into rivers kills people by mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other pollutants diseases And that's not including one ounce of global warming induced deaths A Coal power plant emits far more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant will ever be allowed to emit, because if we mined the coal for uranium and thorium, and fissioned 100% of that uranium+thorium we would get more electricity from the nuclear material than the coal originally produced (using an IFR or a molten salt reactor) Watching a few of Dr. Hellen Caldicott BS arguments being debunked (warning 2 hour video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Molten Salt reactors are not paper dreams. A research reactor was operated before I was born for 22000 hours. The Chinese have a 50 PhD research program working on this right now. So does the Indians. And there are small USA and Canada efforts underway, running on tiny funding, but running nonetheless. Today's computers can simulate such a reactor in such enormous detail, we get about as much data from full scale simulated reactor than more a small scale research reactor. The research reactor is mainly built to prove the data, not so much to get the data itself.
I'm not a solar/wind hater. But I do utterly reject the assertion that we don't need nuclear to solve climate change. Without nuclear there is no solution to climate change, none. I tell people all the time if they want to put solar panels on their rooftop, to please do it (but do the math first, which usually makes a good case for installing the PV system). In the video I just pointed you, it is asserted that despite German's massive investment on renewables, they just managed to increase their average electricity production from renewables by 13% and as a result, they reduced emissions to produce electricity by just 5%. That's the extremely inconvenient truth the radically pro solar/wind environmentalists just don't know or are actively concealing. By using Solar and Wind massively, the grid turns to peaking fossil electricity sources, which typically produce twice as much CO2 / MWh produced (and consume twice as much natural gas or coal). They either ignore and hide the massive instability in electricity production from solar+wind, specially due to wind turbine cubic power output (a 50% drop in wind speed reduces power output by 87%).
Only nuclear can provide massive baseload power anywhere in the world without burning fossil fuels. High temperature reactors can be cooled by air instead of requiring water for cooling. They could also provide heat for mass scale sea water desalinization with just a tiny electricity output margin.
Some +5, try dozens. Yep, I'm tired of discussing with anti nuclear zealots. They keep seeing problems with nuclear power ignoring that nuclear is the safest energy source available right now. Even Solar and Wind kills more people. That's the result of a meticulous safety oriented culture by the vast majority of nuclear operators. Over the last 10 years, nuclear power killed a single person in the USA, a Uranium mining accident. Coal is estimated to kill 13000 people yearly in the USA alone. Natural gas killed over 100 people (the Deepwater Horizon gulf of mexico accident was a natural gas explosion for instance). Hydro also kills people often, due to hydro dams bursting. Even solar and wind kills more people than nuclear, since in order to get something similar to a large nuclear plants worth of wind electricity you need to install thousands of large wind turbine, and those require labor intensive outdoor maintenance. Several solar panel installers fall of roofs every year. Instead the anti nuclear shills focus on creating FUD about nuclear. They prove nothing. All they do is create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
About meltdowns, current solid fuel reactors are damaged if there is any breach in the solid fuel cladding. Inside the cladding the fuel runs around 1200C. The fuel is less than 200C from a meltdown. In case of a meltdown the Zr cladding will melt reacting with the water producing lots of hydrogen gas.
In a molten salt reactor the fuel is molten with the coolant, comparing to a water/gas reactor there is no temperature gradient across solid fuel cladding. The coolant remains a liquid until 1300C. So with a normal 700C operating temperature there is a 500C temperature overrun range until the coolant would vaporize. Much before that the freeze plug will melt and the reactor will shutdown by draining the core into the drain tank. Only a prompt, instant temperature excursion has any risk of internal damage by temperature problems. Anything over a few seconds will result in a natural shutdown. No computers or human intervention needed. This whole think is very well explained in videos by the experts like Kirk Sorensen, watch them and then come criticize.
Your post text shows you don't even understand the different characteristics of nuclear reactors in general. I'm in favor of molten salt reactors. Thorium happens to be the favored fuel, but it could also run on Uranium/Plutonium fuel or a mix of Thorium + Uranium + Plutonium. The primary advantages come from the molten salt coolant, having the nuclear fuel molten with the coolant, having high temperature operation (700C instead of 350C), eliminating the drastic temperature gradients existing in regular water cooled, solid fuel reactors. No risk of meltdown, the fuel is already molten, high temperature = it's easier to reject heat. Molten salt with the fuel mixed in enables the catch pan, freeze plug and drain tank, that allows for truly walk away safety, requires no manual or computerized realtime monitoring systems to control the reactor.
But from your post it's clear you don't care. You just want to attack any and all nuclear technology. It's all nasty, wicked and evil to you. While that continues, coal keeps killing 200,000 people per year in the world. That's the real evil !
Thorium reactor can mean a lot of things. A Molten Salt Thorium reactor start to actually mean something. Then you have FLiBe, Fluoride+something else, Chrolide+something else reactors, there is also molten metal reactors like lead bismuth cooled reactors. The shipping port heavy water reactor ran its last fuel load with Thorium. That's a water cooled, solid fuel reactor running on thorium. Quite a different beast than a molten salt reactor (running on Thorium/U-232, Uranium or a mix of both) it's characteristics are radically different. Solid Fuel Qualification tests are being run at the Halden-Sweden Heavy Water reactor, on a fuel made of 90% Th232 + 10% reactor grade plutonium. Very similar to Shippingport. Lots of relatively minor advantages over regular nuclear reactors. Yet you could call a regular reactor loaded with fuel like tested on Halden a thorium reactor. That's what I'm saying that it's easy to make vague attacks on technology you don't like and have no interest in learning. The fact is I'm tired of having the same improductive discussions with you anti nuclear shills. Look at my post history, I have dozens of 5 rated posts on thorium. Its speaks far more than my introductory course on nuclear technology. The main reason I believe in nuclear power is the vast majority of physics/chemistry PhD have a pro nuclear opinion. Those are the guys that actually understand the issues.
Nice try on the chemistry lesson, go back to college and brush up on your chemical stability. It doesn't matter the temperature, F Li salts are far more chemically stable than Li2O or HF, so there is no way H2O will react at any temperature. F2Be also won't. Anyhow, there is ZERO water on the reactor core. And what matters is not having a chemical fire, which I assure you won't happen no matter the temperature with O2 or H2O in contact with the core materials of a molten salt reactor.
RBMK = Uranium reactors. BN600 reactors are a complete different beast. Please come to the www.energyfromthorium.com forum to see your shallow anti molten salt criticism be ripped apart.
You guys are always trying to do a hatchet job on Molten Salt. It's the proof that it's a credible solution. If it weren't you wouldn't be bothering. You are the paid shills. Nuclear saves hundreds of thousands of lifes yearly. Deal with that FACT !
No I'm not, go to the Energy From Thorium discussion board, discuss there with the pros. Your arguments will be ripped to pieces. It's easy to pretend you are an expert, instead of discussing with the real pros. I have seen this again and again, the arguments posed by the "anti nuclear experts" are always 90% to 100% wrong. I'm tired of repeating the same marathon discussions because you have been fed lies about the subject.
All of you ignore that the 400GWe worth of nuclear reactors in operation in the world have saved millions of people if you had coal power plants in its place. That's a fact. Even if those nukes were all replaced by baseload natural gas plants more people would die as well. If have spent months and months studying this subject. You show no in depth knowledge on the subject.
Coal kills 200 thousand people yearly worldwide. Nuclear kills close to zero. That's the only fact that matters.
The MSRE cleanup became expensive because it was left alone for decades. Should the cleanup have been done up to 10 years after its shutdown, it would have costed a few % of that. No, I'm not an ignorant fanboy. I'm no nuclear engineer, but I have an introduction to nuclear technology course with an A+ grade to show for it. Most of the price tags associated with anything nuclear the DoE comes up with is always outrageously expensive. Its the result of doing everything in the cost is no object + pork barrel model. You guys never show up at thorium discussion forums. Your arguments will be ripped to pieces in front of the nuclear PhDs working on this. You should try this once: http://energyfromthorium.com/f...
Thorium reactor means nothing to me. Thorium fuel can be used on many types of reactors, and usually it's a mix of thorium and something else. So be it in theory or in practice, it seems pretty clear you don't understand what is proposed or the problems that happened in the past, and ways to avoid those. Plus the anti nuclear people insist on taking any problems that happened 25+ years ago as representative of current risks of nuclear technology. From the way you write, it's pretty clear to me you are just reading from a site or quoting a prepared written statement about the issue. Get some basic nuclear technology training then we can discuss the pros and cons of thorium molten salt reactors. With an emphasis on the molten salt. Thorium makes it better, but the most important aspect is the molten salt thermal reactor aspects. I have an 8 week online course from Pittsburgh University with an A+ grade to show I understand way more than anybody without a nuclear engineering or nuclear physics degree. From the way you write, it seems clear you have zero detailed knowledge about anything nuclear.
I have read everything that wasn't produced by the anti nuclear shills about molten salt, it's a promissing technology. How much are you being paid to smear nuclear energy ???
The truth is somewhere in between. IFR reactors were never given a fair chance. They stood as a huge threat to making nuclear power 100% economical, ending our dependence on coal and natural gas for electricity and heating. The fossil fuels lobby couldn't let that happen. Yes, IFR reactors offer some risks of sodium fires, and I'm not a big fan of IFR reactors, but I'd rather have an S-PRISM reactor in my backyard than any Gen II water cooled nukes. I would however prefer a thorium molten salt reactors, with all passive safety features of IFR reactors, plus a chemically stable coolant material, that doesn't want to react with anything we have in the air or with water. We have fast sodium cooled reactors operating for decades in the old USSR land. If they were such a problem, they would have been decomissioned a long time ago. Until we realize that any anti nuclear movement is a pro coal movement, we can't move forward with this discussion. The Germany clean energy plan has failed to reduce Germany CO2 emissions. We need clean, plentiful baseload electricity for at least 50% of our grid needs, the rest we can play with solar, wind, hydro. Only places that have huge geothermal or huge hydro availability don't need nuclear (Iceland for instance). Even my Brazil that has 70% electricity production from hydro does have 2 nukes in operation and plans for many more.
In practice the real problem is we're stuck with the dirtiest nuclear reactor design. The solid fuel, water cooled ones. Powered by Uranium. There are quite a few designs that consume more transuranics than are produced (molten salt reactors, any fast reactor just to name two options). Current nuclear reactors take 250tons of uranium, reject 215tons during enrichment (depleted uranium), making 35tons of nuclear fuel. Of those 35 tons, just a single ton is converted into electricity (producing fission products), making 300kg of plutonium plus 10s of kg of other transuranics. That means 99,3% of the original uranium is wasted (never fissioned). By reprocessing the waste, usage of nuclear material can improve from 0,7% to over 1,5%, and nuclear waste can be reduced by an order of magnitude, without needing waste burning reactors. A Thorium molten salt LFTR reactor would run on Th-232 / U-233, but up to 3% of the fuel could be nuclear waste, such a reactor would produce close to zero transuranics, and the resulting fission products could be partitioned (two elements have 30 year half life - 19% of waste, remaining 81% of fission products have less than 3 year half life, would be stable in 30 years), without the risk of using molten sodium in the core, without the trouble of fast neutrons degrading the reactor internal walls.
Please go study nuclear basics before saying such nonsense. Fissioning Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Neptunium produces fission products which have half lives a few orders of magnitude lower than the original transuranics. A study shows 81% of fission products are mostly stable after 30 yrs (half lives under 3 yrs, 10 half lives means 99.9% of decaying is done). The remaining 19% takes 300 yrs to be stable (30 yrs half life). The original transuranics have half lives in the thousands of years, many millenia to become stable. The problem is with solid fueled reactors which are unable to undergo pyro reprocessing online. With online pyro reprocessing, only fission products are removed from the core. That's my interesting conclusion, IFR and other advanced reactors were cancelled in the 80s not because they were dangerous, but because they were on track to end our reliance on coal and natural gas for electricity production, and the fossil fuel lobby couldn't let that happen. Everybody that is against nuclear power today is in fact pro coal and natural gas.
Rolling new fiber perhaps, replacing a functional HFC network, using added savings as the profitability criteria, utterly different economical parameters. There is no question that it no longer makes ANY SENSE to roll out new copper networks, none whatsoever. But for existing networks, replacing the old coax one with a fiber one, the economics aren't quite as sweet.
However you ignore that rolling fiber to suburban america is only unprofitable if you use a short return window. Rolling fiber based on a 10-15 year payback is a profitable investment for any suburban residential area as long as you plan to migrate all customers to fiber. Fiber gets rid of all mid of the way active amplification systems, that fail every few years and that require power supply (either solar+battery or an utility electricity bill). GEPON can be rolled with up to 20 km from the GEPON base to the subscriber with nothing but fiber and passive splitters along the way. Fiber allows a reduction and concentration of powered equipment by an order of magnitude, nothing to sneeze at. The real issue here is maximizing profits, Fiber is just far less profitable in the short run. In the long run it could be even cheaper to operate. But per the usual, people go on telling lies to the public to justify their extreme short term profiteering approach to business.
Funny, technically everything they says from an ISP lingo and what is expected from an open ISP that doesn't have a vested interest in making a money in things other than serving their customers... It's your post that sounds like someone that either has an axe to grind with google or work for the competition. PS: I'm in the telecom business, I'm an expert in carrier IPv4 and landline voice technology, so you can't fool me easily.
The basic facility is plenty used in aircraft and ships alike, and its called INS (inertial navigation sensor). It's just a different type of INS. Not to belittle it, its just that there is already a name for this. Current INS systems run or Laser Ring Gyros, MEMs (microelectromechanical system), and there is also the old fashioned (and somewhat unreliable) old school mechanical INS systems (originally designed for submarines, to allow them to navigate for days underwater, without any access to celestial navigation or any electronical systems navigation too). INS systems in general obtain accelerations and must integrate accelerations to obtain velocities and then integrate again to obtain position. This tends to make INS systems fairly inaccurate for long term positioning, GPS / Galileo / eLoran will always be needed.
As if the fossil fuels industry is the only power block with politicians in their backpockets. Don't forget about the military industrial complex, the auto industry. If the Comcrap and Time Warner didn't have a boatload of politicians in their back pockets they wouldn't dream about this deal.
ARM cpus are cheap, extremely cheap, since any company can license ARM designs and produce them, the critical item being the foundry. Plus even if you could get 20% profit margin out of a product worth 5% of the tablet instead of making 10% out of 100% of the product, what is better ? Even better, making the CPU, RAM, Flash modules and the tablet... So I think you are mistaken my friend.
ARMv8 an inferior design ? On what grounds ? For its intended market ARMv8 is the best tech available. It's not meant to replace traditional Intel markets. Its about creating new markets that will eventually replace the typical Intel market (desktop computer mainly). Very happy typing on my Cortex A15 Chromebook. My main issues with this machine are the limitations of ChromeOS and having only 2GB of RAM. Nothing a 4GB RAM, Cortex A53 Chromebook wouldn't solve (plus re installing a new Linux replacing ChromeOS). Haven't replaced ChromeOS yet, since the alternatives haven't figured out how to do video acceleration yet. In another 5 years ARM will really be killing Intel. What they need is to stay the course, instead of succumbing to the temptation of trying to compete with the Core iX CPUs. The vast majority of the users have zero need for a Core i7, or even a Core i5, as long as they get rid of their WinBloat OS and use Linux instead. What I want is an ARMv8 cpu that has the performance of the latest Core i3, even if they need 8 or 12 cores to do that.
Elon wants to change the Car industry. Just making batteries won't guarantee that outcome. I'm sure he would much rather not be making batteries, but even Panasonic isn't good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
No you don't. The airwaves aren't yours just because you own some land.
L1 GPS spectrum is FCC licensed to the DOD.
Cell Phone microwave spectrum is FCC licensed (after paying billions in fees) to the respective cell phone operators, so no, you can't operate a cell phone jammer pretty much nowhere in the world.
You can only do that if you own an island somewhere in the world where you are you own country.
You're just another idiot that pretends the federal govt doesn't exist, go doing that until you get arrested and jailed for years for doing what you claim is your right.
Tens of millions of dollars for decades pay for people's careers.
With very little to show for.
Stop fusion research. Give molten salt thorium reactors a chance.
Big difference, fusion needs scientific breakthrough.
Molten Salt Thorium reactors are strictly engineering challenges, and not very difficult ones.
The LFTR reactor enables mainly fissioning Uranium 233 (Th-232 -> Pa-233 -> U-233 -> fission).
LFTR could run with a 3% blend of spent nuclear fuel for solid uranium reactors (AKA Nuclear Waste).
LFTR output is fully fissioned (99%+) material, 81% is stable in 10 years, 19% is table in 300 years (compared to current nuclear waste that takes millenia to become stable).
By mixing in spent nuclear fuel, a large fleet of LFTR reactors could burn up 100% of existing spent nuclear fuel stockpiles, while producing two orders of magnitude nuclear products than current reactors. Currently it takes 250 tons of mined uranium to fission one ton of uranium producing 1GW year of electricity. With LFTR 1 ton of Thorium produces the same 1GW year of electricity (less than 10000 tons of Thorium per year would produce close to 120% of worldwide electricity demand) !
And LFTR development could be done 30 to 40% public money and the rest private funding. Could be just a loan guarantee.
Plenty of investment interest in LFTR if govt would come in and sweeten the deal just a little.
While Fusion research today is 100% money invested without any expectation of medium term return at all !
But instead we're hostage to radical anti nuclear environmentalists, that want solar/wind everything, which is a solution that creates as many problems as it solves.
Solar+wind might not produce any CO2 directly, but the fossil fuel peaking plants used to cover the time solar+wind shortfalls do produce twice as much CO2 as fossil baseload electricity sources. Only nuclear is CO2 free baseload electricity source !
Coal mining kills people both in accidents and black lung disease
Coal burning kills people from air pollution
Coal ash piles spillage into rivers kills people by mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other pollutants diseases
And that's not including one ounce of global warming induced deaths
A Coal power plant emits far more radioactivity than a nuclear power plant will ever be allowed to emit, because if we mined the coal for uranium and thorium, and fissioned 100% of that uranium+thorium we would get more electricity from the nuclear material than the coal originally produced (using an IFR or a molten salt reactor)
Watching a few of Dr. Hellen Caldicott BS arguments being debunked (warning 2 hour video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Molten Salt reactors are not paper dreams. A research reactor was operated before I was born for 22000 hours. The Chinese have a 50 PhD research program working on this right now. So does the Indians. And there are small USA and Canada efforts underway, running on tiny funding, but running nonetheless.
Today's computers can simulate such a reactor in such enormous detail, we get about as much data from full scale simulated reactor than more a small scale research reactor. The research reactor is mainly built to prove the data, not so much to get the data itself.
I'm not a solar/wind hater. But I do utterly reject the assertion that we don't need nuclear to solve climate change. Without nuclear there is no solution to climate change, none. I tell people all the time if they want to put solar panels on their rooftop, to please do it (but do the math first, which usually makes a good case for installing the PV system).
In the video I just pointed you, it is asserted that despite German's massive investment on renewables, they just managed to increase their average electricity production from renewables by 13% and as a result, they reduced emissions to produce electricity by just 5%.
That's the extremely inconvenient truth the radically pro solar/wind environmentalists just don't know or are actively concealing. By using Solar and Wind massively, the grid turns to peaking fossil electricity sources, which typically produce twice as much CO2 / MWh produced (and consume twice as much natural gas or coal). They either ignore and hide the massive instability in electricity production from solar+wind, specially due to wind turbine cubic power output (a 50% drop in wind speed reduces power output by 87%).
Only nuclear can provide massive baseload power anywhere in the world without burning fossil fuels. High temperature reactors can be cooled by air instead of requiring water for cooling. They could also provide heat for mass scale sea water desalinization with just a tiny electricity output margin.
Some +5, try dozens.
Yep, I'm tired of discussing with anti nuclear zealots.
They keep seeing problems with nuclear power ignoring that nuclear is the safest energy source available right now. Even Solar and Wind kills more people.
That's the result of a meticulous safety oriented culture by the vast majority of nuclear operators.
Over the last 10 years, nuclear power killed a single person in the USA, a Uranium mining accident. Coal is estimated to kill 13000 people yearly in the USA alone. Natural gas killed over 100 people (the Deepwater Horizon gulf of mexico accident was a natural gas explosion for instance).
Hydro also kills people often, due to hydro dams bursting.
Even solar and wind kills more people than nuclear, since in order to get something similar to a large nuclear plants worth of wind electricity you need to install thousands of large wind turbine, and those require labor intensive outdoor maintenance. Several solar panel installers fall of roofs every year.
Instead the anti nuclear shills focus on creating FUD about nuclear. They prove nothing. All they do is create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
About meltdowns, current solid fuel reactors are damaged if there is any breach in the solid fuel cladding.
Inside the cladding the fuel runs around 1200C. The fuel is less than 200C from a meltdown. In case of a meltdown the Zr cladding will melt reacting with the water producing lots of hydrogen gas.
In a molten salt reactor the fuel is molten with the coolant, comparing to a water/gas reactor there is no temperature gradient across solid fuel cladding.
The coolant remains a liquid until 1300C. So with a normal 700C operating temperature there is a 500C temperature overrun range until the coolant would vaporize.
Much before that the freeze plug will melt and the reactor will shutdown by draining the core into the drain tank.
Only a prompt, instant temperature excursion has any risk of internal damage by temperature problems. Anything over a few seconds will result in a natural shutdown. No computers or human intervention needed.
This whole think is very well explained in videos by the experts like Kirk Sorensen, watch them and then come criticize.
Your post text shows you don't even understand the different characteristics of nuclear reactors in general.
I'm in favor of molten salt reactors. Thorium happens to be the favored fuel, but it could also run on Uranium/Plutonium fuel or a mix of Thorium + Uranium + Plutonium.
The primary advantages come from the molten salt coolant, having the nuclear fuel molten with the coolant, having high temperature operation (700C instead of 350C), eliminating the drastic temperature gradients existing in regular water cooled, solid fuel reactors. No risk of meltdown, the fuel is already molten, high temperature = it's easier to reject heat. Molten salt with the fuel mixed in enables the catch pan, freeze plug and drain tank, that allows for truly walk away safety, requires no manual or computerized realtime monitoring systems to control the reactor.
But from your post it's clear you don't care. You just want to attack any and all nuclear technology. It's all nasty, wicked and evil to you.
While that continues, coal keeps killing 200,000 people per year in the world. That's the real evil !
https://www.coursera.org/cours...
Thorium reactor can mean a lot of things.
A Molten Salt Thorium reactor start to actually mean something. Then you have FLiBe, Fluoride+something else, Chrolide+something else reactors, there is also molten metal reactors like lead bismuth cooled reactors.
The shipping port heavy water reactor ran its last fuel load with Thorium. That's a water cooled, solid fuel reactor running on thorium. Quite a different beast than a molten salt reactor (running on Thorium/U-232, Uranium or a mix of both) it's characteristics are radically different.
Solid Fuel Qualification tests are being run at the Halden-Sweden Heavy Water reactor, on a fuel made of 90% Th232 + 10% reactor grade plutonium. Very similar to Shippingport. Lots of relatively minor advantages over regular nuclear reactors. Yet you could call a regular reactor loaded with fuel like tested on Halden a thorium reactor.
That's what I'm saying that it's easy to make vague attacks on technology you don't like and have no interest in learning.
The fact is I'm tired of having the same improductive discussions with you anti nuclear shills.
Look at my post history, I have dozens of 5 rated posts on thorium. Its speaks far more than my introductory course on nuclear technology.
The main reason I believe in nuclear power is the vast majority of physics/chemistry PhD have a pro nuclear opinion. Those are the guys that actually understand the issues.
Nice try on the chemistry lesson, go back to college and brush up on your chemical stability.
It doesn't matter the temperature, F Li salts are far more chemically stable than Li2O or HF, so there is no way H2O will react at any temperature. F2Be also won't.
Anyhow, there is ZERO water on the reactor core.
And what matters is not having a chemical fire, which I assure you won't happen no matter the temperature with O2 or H2O in contact with the core materials of a molten salt reactor.
RBMK = Uranium reactors. BN600 reactors are a complete different beast.
Please come to the www.energyfromthorium.com forum to see your shallow anti molten salt criticism be ripped apart.
You guys are always trying to do a hatchet job on Molten Salt. It's the proof that it's a credible solution. If it weren't you wouldn't be bothering.
You are the paid shills.
Nuclear saves hundreds of thousands of lifes yearly. Deal with that FACT !
No I'm not, go to the Energy From Thorium discussion board, discuss there with the pros. Your arguments will be ripped to pieces.
It's easy to pretend you are an expert, instead of discussing with the real pros.
I have seen this again and again, the arguments posed by the "anti nuclear experts" are always 90% to 100% wrong.
I'm tired of repeating the same marathon discussions because you have been fed lies about the subject.
All of you ignore that the 400GWe worth of nuclear reactors in operation in the world have saved millions of people if you had coal power plants in its place. That's a fact. Even if those nukes were all replaced by baseload natural gas plants more people would die as well.
If have spent months and months studying this subject. You show no in depth knowledge on the subject.
Coal kills 200 thousand people yearly worldwide. Nuclear kills close to zero.
That's the only fact that matters.
The MSRE cleanup became expensive because it was left alone for decades. Should the cleanup have been done up to 10 years after its shutdown, it would have costed a few % of that.
No, I'm not an ignorant fanboy. I'm no nuclear engineer, but I have an introduction to nuclear technology course with an A+ grade to show for it.
Most of the price tags associated with anything nuclear the DoE comes up with is always outrageously expensive. Its the result of doing everything in the cost is no object + pork barrel model.
You guys never show up at thorium discussion forums.
Your arguments will be ripped to pieces in front of the nuclear PhDs working on this. You should try this once:
http://energyfromthorium.com/f...
Thorium reactor means nothing to me. Thorium fuel can be used on many types of reactors, and usually it's a mix of thorium and something else.
So be it in theory or in practice, it seems pretty clear you don't understand what is proposed or the problems that happened in the past, and ways to avoid those.
Plus the anti nuclear people insist on taking any problems that happened 25+ years ago as representative of current risks of nuclear technology.
From the way you write, it's pretty clear to me you are just reading from a site or quoting a prepared written statement about the issue.
Get some basic nuclear technology training then we can discuss the pros and cons of thorium molten salt reactors. With an emphasis on the molten salt. Thorium makes it better, but the most important aspect is the molten salt thermal reactor aspects.
I have an 8 week online course from Pittsburgh University with an A+ grade to show I understand way more than anybody without a nuclear engineering or nuclear physics degree. From the way you write, it seems clear you have zero detailed knowledge about anything nuclear.
I have read everything that wasn't produced by the anti nuclear shills about molten salt, it's a promissing technology.
How much are you being paid to smear nuclear energy ???
Humm, everything I read on the molten salt experiment tells me otherwise... Nice try.
The truth is somewhere in between. IFR reactors were never given a fair chance. They stood as a huge threat to making nuclear power 100% economical, ending our dependence on coal and natural gas for electricity and heating. The fossil fuels lobby couldn't let that happen.
Yes, IFR reactors offer some risks of sodium fires, and I'm not a big fan of IFR reactors, but I'd rather have an S-PRISM reactor in my backyard than any Gen II water cooled nukes.
I would however prefer a thorium molten salt reactors, with all passive safety features of IFR reactors, plus a chemically stable coolant material, that doesn't want to react with anything we have in the air or with water.
We have fast sodium cooled reactors operating for decades in the old USSR land. If they were such a problem, they would have been decomissioned a long time ago.
Until we realize that any anti nuclear movement is a pro coal movement, we can't move forward with this discussion.
The Germany clean energy plan has failed to reduce Germany CO2 emissions. We need clean, plentiful baseload electricity for at least 50% of our grid needs, the rest we can play with solar, wind, hydro. Only places that have huge geothermal or huge hydro availability don't need nuclear (Iceland for instance). Even my Brazil that has 70% electricity production from hydro does have 2 nukes in operation and plans for many more.
In practice the real problem is we're stuck with the dirtiest nuclear reactor design. The solid fuel, water cooled ones. Powered by Uranium.
There are quite a few designs that consume more transuranics than are produced (molten salt reactors, any fast reactor just to name two options).
Current nuclear reactors take 250tons of uranium, reject 215tons during enrichment (depleted uranium), making 35tons of nuclear fuel.
Of those 35 tons, just a single ton is converted into electricity (producing fission products), making 300kg of plutonium plus 10s of kg of other transuranics.
That means 99,3% of the original uranium is wasted (never fissioned).
By reprocessing the waste, usage of nuclear material can improve from 0,7% to over 1,5%, and nuclear waste can be reduced by an order of magnitude, without needing waste burning reactors.
A Thorium molten salt LFTR reactor would run on Th-232 / U-233, but up to 3% of the fuel could be nuclear waste, such a reactor would produce close to zero transuranics, and the resulting fission products could be partitioned (two elements have 30 year half life - 19% of waste, remaining 81% of fission products have less than 3 year half life, would be stable in 30 years), without the risk of using molten sodium in the core, without the trouble of fast neutrons degrading the reactor internal walls.
Please go study nuclear basics before saying such nonsense.
Fissioning Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Neptunium produces fission products which have half lives a few orders of magnitude lower than the original transuranics.
A study shows 81% of fission products are mostly stable after 30 yrs (half lives under 3 yrs, 10 half lives means 99.9% of decaying is done). The remaining 19% takes 300 yrs to be stable (30 yrs half life).
The original transuranics have half lives in the thousands of years, many millenia to become stable.
The problem is with solid fueled reactors which are unable to undergo pyro reprocessing online.
With online pyro reprocessing, only fission products are removed from the core.
That's my interesting conclusion, IFR and other advanced reactors were cancelled in the 80s not because they were dangerous, but because they were on track to end our reliance on coal and natural gas for electricity production, and the fossil fuel lobby couldn't let that happen.
Everybody that is against nuclear power today is in fact pro coal and natural gas.
Rolling new fiber perhaps, replacing a functional HFC network, using added savings as the profitability criteria, utterly different economical parameters.
There is no question that it no longer makes ANY SENSE to roll out new copper networks, none whatsoever. But for existing networks, replacing the old coax one with a fiber one, the economics aren't quite as sweet.
However you ignore that rolling fiber to suburban america is only unprofitable if you use a short return window.
Rolling fiber based on a 10-15 year payback is a profitable investment for any suburban residential area as long as you plan to migrate all customers to fiber.
Fiber gets rid of all mid of the way active amplification systems, that fail every few years and that require power supply (either solar+battery or an utility electricity bill).
GEPON can be rolled with up to 20 km from the GEPON base to the subscriber with nothing but fiber and passive splitters along the way.
Fiber allows a reduction and concentration of powered equipment by an order of magnitude, nothing to sneeze at.
The real issue here is maximizing profits, Fiber is just far less profitable in the short run. In the long run it could be even cheaper to operate.
But per the usual, people go on telling lies to the public to justify their extreme short term profiteering approach to business.
Funny, technically everything they says from an ISP lingo and what is expected from an open ISP that doesn't have a vested interest in making a money in things other than serving their customers...
It's your post that sounds like someone that either has an axe to grind with google or work for the competition.
PS: I'm in the telecom business, I'm an expert in carrier IPv4 and landline voice technology, so you can't fool me easily.
The basic facility is plenty used in aircraft and ships alike, and its called INS (inertial navigation sensor).
It's just a different type of INS. Not to belittle it, its just that there is already a name for this.
Current INS systems run or Laser Ring Gyros, MEMs (microelectromechanical system), and there is also the old fashioned (and somewhat unreliable) old school mechanical INS systems (originally designed for submarines, to allow them to navigate for days underwater, without any access to celestial navigation or any electronical systems navigation too).
INS systems in general obtain accelerations and must integrate accelerations to obtain velocities and then integrate again to obtain position. This tends to make INS systems fairly inaccurate for long term positioning, GPS / Galileo / eLoran will always be needed.
As if the fossil fuels industry is the only power block with politicians in their backpockets.
Don't forget about the military industrial complex, the auto industry.
If the Comcrap and Time Warner didn't have a boatload of politicians in their back pockets they wouldn't dream about this deal.
ARM cpus are cheap, extremely cheap, since any company can license ARM designs and produce them, the critical item being the foundry.
Plus even if you could get 20% profit margin out of a product worth 5% of the tablet instead of making 10% out of 100% of the product, what is better ?
Even better, making the CPU, RAM, Flash modules and the tablet...
So I think you are mistaken my friend.
ARMv8 an inferior design ? On what grounds ?
For its intended market ARMv8 is the best tech available. It's not meant to replace traditional Intel markets. Its about creating new markets that will eventually replace the typical Intel market (desktop computer mainly).
Very happy typing on my Cortex A15 Chromebook. My main issues with this machine are the limitations of ChromeOS and having only 2GB of RAM. Nothing a 4GB RAM, Cortex A53 Chromebook wouldn't solve (plus re installing a new Linux replacing ChromeOS). Haven't replaced ChromeOS yet, since the alternatives haven't figured out how to do video acceleration yet.
In another 5 years ARM will really be killing Intel. What they need is to stay the course, instead of succumbing to the temptation of trying to compete with the Core iX CPUs. The vast majority of the users have zero need for a Core i7, or even a Core i5, as long as they get rid of their WinBloat OS and use Linux instead.
What I want is an ARMv8 cpu that has the performance of the latest Core i3, even if they need 8 or 12 cores to do that.
Elon wants to change the Car industry. Just making batteries won't guarantee that outcome. I'm sure he would much rather not be making batteries, but even Panasonic isn't good enough.