There are no designs ever that would mean Fukushima wouldn't happen. Cost cutting, bureaucracy, incompetence and tsunamis will always put a dent in your day. IIRC there are still more than 10000 people missing after the tsunami.
Estimated reserves of Th are only 5x that of U if you ignore ocean reserves. Reprocessing gives you at least 60x more. Both can give a lot. But its far from infinite or even approximately infinite. But a few 1000 years should be a good start. Of course that assumes we stop this exponential growth thing. If we keep that up we will use more than the total energy in the galaxy in a 1000 years or so!
India has massive reserves of Th. The main reason they push it internally. If they don't need to buy U from others they can be more independent with regard to nulcear policy. Currently they mostly play ball with the IAEA.
No thorium reactors have never done any breeding... So in other words they were fueled with 233U, not 232Th. So no we have never run a true prototype, but only a prototype of a prototype.
The problem is clear: horrifically expensive and somewhat dangerous nuclear plants all over the US, demonstrating every day that at least in the US, we have no freaking idea how to make cheap clean safe nuclear power. Everyone's losing money in nuclear power, which is why we haven't built any in a while.
There is no evidence that LFTR will be any different. Passive safety etc are fine and are better than active only. But that not the same as "can't go wrong". Everyone said that about pebble bed reactors too. The only build was a total disaster.
Almost any style of plant can be safe. But will it be safe after cost cutting? Do you trust the government or corporation to do the job well enough? Does every one else trust them enough?
A LFTR has the Thorium in a liquid and its not dissolved in NaF but LiF. But that is not how most Thorium is currently used, but in normal solid pellet fuel elements. In fact there are no LFTR right now. I think china has on on the drawing board only.
Or have horrible dialogue and huge gaping plot holes.
How is using giant robots rather than say a large missile anything but a plot hole. The entire premise of the movie is a plot hole. Not uncommon in sci fi.
Great movie. But to defend star trek. The original was a special effects show/movie too. Its hard not to be when your genre is sci fi.
And i think the reboots are good. In fact i would go as far to say that the current "hate the new ST films" is the " its a new one so i already know its crap and i will hate it/not as good as the orginal". Why then do these people go to these movies? I think its a age effect. We believe things that are often not all that good are amazing when we are younger. Hard to have that effect on you when older.
Couldn't agree more, it more or less defined even modern cinematography. And at the time it bombed as well. Worth seeing once, even if just to get the rosebud jokes.
A chuck of these films are as formulaic as it gets. A large chunk of the rest are pretty predictable. Its like no one has ever read a book or something.
For a long time, movies have been losing their appeal to me. The "theatrical experience" is not near what I expect anymore.
Mostly this is because you are older. Not that movies or the "theatrical experience" has changed all that much... You probably don't like kids on your lawn either.
I did go see World War Z and did my best to ignore that it wasn't supposed to follow the book.
Seriously? I am 20 pages from finishing the book. Haven't seen the movie, but the movie *can't* follow the book since there is nothing to follow! Next you will be complaining that the prequel, The Zombie Survival Guide doesn't follow the book. Again, nothing to follow.
Have you read the book?
TBH i don't mind the bigger Hollywood movies. They are almost always what they advertise to be. Mindless action plots with a few one liners. Sometimes that is what i want. Every now and then they take themselves a little too seriously, but that doesn't get in the way of a few hours of downtime/entertainment.
If you want a plot, leave Hollywood out of it and read a book.
Slashdot Mirror
There are no designs ever that would mean Fukushima wouldn't happen. Cost cutting, bureaucracy, incompetence and tsunamis will always put a dent in your day. IIRC there are still more than 10000 people missing after the tsunami.
Estimated reserves of Th are only 5x that of U if you ignore ocean reserves. Reprocessing gives you at least 60x more. Both can give a lot. But its far from infinite or even approximately infinite. But a few 1000 years should be a good start. Of course that assumes we stop this exponential growth thing. If we keep that up we will use more than the total energy in the galaxy in a 1000 years or so!
India has massive reserves of Th. The main reason they push it internally. If they don't need to buy U from others they can be more independent with regard to nulcear policy. Currently they mostly play ball with the IAEA.
No thorium reactors have never done any breeding... So in other words they were fueled with 233U, not 232Th. So no we have never run a true prototype, but only a prototype of a prototype.
The problem is clear: horrifically expensive and somewhat dangerous nuclear plants all over the US, demonstrating every day that at least in the US, we have no freaking idea how to make cheap clean safe nuclear power. Everyone's losing money in nuclear power, which is why we haven't built any in a while.
There is no evidence that LFTR will be any different. Passive safety etc are fine and are better than active only. But that not the same as "can't go wrong". Everyone said that about pebble bed reactors too. The only build was a total disaster.
Almost any style of plant can be safe. But will it be safe after cost cutting? Do you trust the government or corporation to do the job well enough? Does every one else trust them enough?
A LFTR has the Thorium in a liquid and its not dissolved in NaF but LiF. But that is not how most Thorium is currently used, but in normal solid pellet fuel elements. In fact there are no LFTR right now. I think china has on on the drawing board only.
Its more like 70 without reprocessing and *not* finding anymore and not touching ocean reserves. Reprocessing gives you at least 60x more than that.
The same is true for hydro... and well just about anything that big and that fundamental to modern infrastructure.
And when reprocessing is so expensive and politically difficult.
Shutter Island had a similar ending....
Or have horrible dialogue and huge gaping plot holes.
How is using giant robots rather than say a large missile anything but a plot hole. The entire premise of the movie is a plot hole. Not uncommon in sci fi.
After earth had two big problems with it. The premises of bio engineered animal weapons that are blind. And that it was boring.
Yes and no. Even high grossing world wide, half is still typically from USA. For some reason you guys love your movies.
Great movie. But to defend star trek. The original was a special effects show/movie too. Its hard not to be when your genre is sci fi.
And i think the reboots are good. In fact i would go as far to say that the current "hate the new ST films" is the " its a new one so i already know its crap and i will hate it/not as good as the orginal". Why then do these people go to these movies? I think its a age effect. We believe things that are often not all that good are amazing when we are younger. Hard to have that effect on you when older.
Yea, then it would have been as boring as the book... and that was BBOOORRINNG (in a homer voice).
They keep making superhero movies because they don't bomb. They make a lot of money.
Couldn't agree more, it more or less defined even modern cinematography. And at the time it bombed as well. Worth seeing once, even if just to get the rosebud jokes.
There is very little correlation with RT and box office take.
And despite that everyone seems to hate Michael Bay movies, they make hundreds of millions at the box office. He is doing something right.
Turns out people will go to a movie with known actors. Unknown, not so much. We get the movies we have voted for.
Interesting. Several of those films are 'action' films, although none of them are mindless summer blockbuster material.
What do you think Terminator was at the time?
A chuck of these films are as formulaic as it gets. A large chunk of the rest are pretty predictable. Its like no one has ever read a book or something.
Some people like bling. They like the art of bling.
For a long time, movies have been losing their appeal to me. The "theatrical experience" is not near what I expect anymore.
Mostly this is because you are older. Not that movies or the "theatrical experience" has changed all that much... You probably don't like kids on your lawn either.
I did go see World War Z and did my best to ignore that it wasn't supposed to follow the book.
Seriously? I am 20 pages from finishing the book. Haven't seen the movie, but the movie *can't* follow the book since there is nothing to follow! Next you will be complaining that the prequel, The Zombie Survival Guide doesn't follow the book. Again, nothing to follow.
Have you read the book?
TBH i don't mind the bigger Hollywood movies. They are almost always what they advertise to be. Mindless action plots with a few one liners. Sometimes that is what i want. Every now and then they take themselves a little too seriously, but that doesn't get in the way of a few hours of downtime/entertainment.
If you want a plot, leave Hollywood out of it and read a book.