That's my point. In a molten salt reactor, the Th consumes a neutron. After a little while it becomes Pa. Pa has a neutron cross section that's about 10x higher than Th, so for neutron economy reasons, its *chemically* separated out. This step is easy, and you don't get any U234 contamination. Pa233 half life is about 25 days IIRC. So I just wait a while and i get nice bomb grade U233 without the U234.
The reality is that Th reactors are not more proliferation resistant than anything else.
Personally i don't have a problem with that. I think both U and Th fuel cycles can work. But *not* once through cycles. Thats just stupid.
Do the numbers, it only works if A) we build a *lot* more dams, and some places thats hard, like Nevada. B) Still have massive over capacity from the inefficacy and the fact you must have enough in storage just in case. This translates to stupid expensive electricity. Like 3x my current *rent*.
Don't forget the greens don't want dams either. The lakes are not all good.
Some numbers! If the ship is just 100kg with cargo, then you need 6.36e22 J to get to.99999998c assuming 100% efficiency. About 1.4e21 J hits earth everyday from the sun. So a earth sized solar panel will collected the energy required in about 4 and half days. All assuming no energy losses.
Methods that make Thorium reactors have a small waste foot print, can also be used with Uranium. As for bomb concerns... you can make a bomb from U233 which is what you get when breading from Th. Th fuel cycle is not really more resistant in this regard. The molten salt reactors can even be a little worse since Pa is separated out chemically and left to decay into U233... nice pure bomb metal... or close enough.
You get and extra 60x that if you reprocess your waste. You also reduce your nuclear waste by a factor of 60 as well. And then there is Th and U in the oceans. Basically more than enough fuel for many thousands of years.
Nuclear *with* reprocessing is not short sighted. The waste can be on the order of a few tons per year and can be safe in a few 100 years with current plans for waste management. Problem is, its still cheaper to just not reprocess and in the US there is no commercial incentive to produce less waste. Radioactivity is not the big boogie man its made out to be. Some waste from plastic manufacture are a lot more poisonous and never break down and yet we deal with a lot of that sort of thing all the time. Proper management is easily doable.
But pretending that all the problems are solved with fossil fuels by pumping back into the ground is naive at best, and ignorant at worst. You have not idea of the scale of even a 1GW power station. And you can't replace a 1GW plant with 1GW of wind turbines or solar... you need either massive storage facilities and/or massive over generation capacity...which results in expensive electricity.
Thanks. Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media, TV shows, movies or otherwise. The submitter has sold privacy for convenience. Convenience of mere entertainment no less. Privacy is not getting taken away, we are giving it up freely.
As I now work with developmental biologists, i can assure you that "your genes" play far less of a role for many things that standard dogma leads us to believe (yes there are plenty of things it does effect). Yes some people will be taller, but this generation is the taller because of better nutrition.
Environmental effects that can have an equally real impact on things. And we are a long way from understanding the transcriptome at the level suggested by these kind of "correlations"
By making you agree to these terms before giving you a license for an encoder/decoder. So the contract to encode, is that you pay to upload what you have produced.
So if I make a better chip maker, i can license it with fees on the total number of chips produced rather than a fixed fee on the device.
Patents in this cases cut far further than just the cost of getting a license. Its the fine print that can be put into this license.
Just look at apples products. The terms and conditions means you are not permitted to encode anything with h.264 without an extra license from MPEG LA if you are doing for commercial reasons.
In the EU where software patents are granted but currently untested as enforceable in the courts. I can legally use h.264 in software (still lawyers squirm). In the US where software patents are enforceable i cannot.
In the EU if i make a hardware player, then yes i need a license for H.264. Its needs to be more than just hardware that *could* play with the instillation of software.
Its tricky with when/who installs the software onto the hardware and lawyers don't want to give you a straight answer. But there is a legal distinction.
There has been litigation attempts against h.264 and mpeg2. A license agreement specifically states that its not MPEG LAs problem and they don't promise that someone else out there wont have a patent over their codecs.
Fact is no software is safe with software patents. Especially in the US where everything is just let though.
At the lower bit rate end of the spectrum Theora is not bad, and would be competitive if it had the same development effort that the "Open Source" H.264 codec encoders get. Personally I think both theora and h.264 look like complete crap at you tube bandwidths.
However Theora is working. Its mere existence is forcing MPEG LA to address license concerns. If Theora wasn't around, we would even be having a serious "open codec" debate, we be asking how much is licensing html 5.0 going to cost.
Its even worse than nothing. Radiation. Cosmic rays to be exact are really difficult to deal with. Then the odd Coronal mass ejection can really spice things up. Here on earth we have weak but physically massive magnetic field and about 10 tons per m2 of atmosphere to protect us.
It has often been noticed that the difference between livable areas and non livable is the cost of energy.... If you can produce really cheap energy (costs include environmental impact), then desalination plants and all sorts of marginal mineral deposits become economic. Doing things in an environmentally friendly manner also gets cheaper and much less of a burden.
Check your facts dude. Even without reprocessing, Uranium from the ocean will last many centuries. With reprocessing, the *current* non ocean reserves will last over 5000 years.
Oil is more problematic... but we shouldn't be burning it anyway... and a fission reactor can even produce liquid fuels for cars and aircraft and provide all the electricity we need.
there is too much coal in the world. Forget global warming if we get even a little close to burring all the coal we have. Most coal mines are unused because there is huge amount of far cheaper sources of coal. But if the price goes up just a little......
We already recycle aggressively here... what the hell are you guys doing....
And with 100s of years being the time frames... We will even have DD fusion by then. Thats enough for 15 billion years! The sun burns out in 5 billion.
I do believe that history tells us the US was asked to help. However some help did have a large invoice attached, and the former nation that could "project" all the power around the world had to agree to be a bit more open with trade as well.
Since enough of my family died in both the pacific and Europe locations, i am rather glad the US got involved, both with production and solders.
Half a month in total darkness is not good for any viable solar methods. He3 is about.001 ppm. Not common and certainly not extractable by any near term or even long term technology. Helium 3 is *not* radioactive, and is not even all that useful for fusion energy even if we could make it work. With current numbers a He3 reactor is about 2000x lower power density than DT. So for the cost of a 1GW fusion DT reactor you would get less than 500kW. IFF it could ever work. It will always be cheaper to deal with neutrons and T to produce He3.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my point. In a molten salt reactor, the Th consumes a neutron. After a little while it becomes Pa. Pa has a neutron cross section that's about 10x higher than Th, so for neutron economy reasons, its *chemically* separated out. This step is easy, and you don't get any U234 contamination. Pa233 half life is about 25 days IIRC. So I just wait a while and i get nice bomb grade U233 without the U234.
The reality is that Th reactors are not more proliferation resistant than anything else.
Personally i don't have a problem with that. I think both U and Th fuel cycles can work. But *not* once through cycles. Thats just stupid.
Do the numbers, it only works if A) we build a *lot* more dams, and some places thats hard, like Nevada. B) Still have massive over capacity from the inefficacy and the fact you must have enough in storage just in case. This translates to stupid expensive electricity. Like 3x my current *rent*.
Don't forget the greens don't want dams either. The lakes are not all good.
Ops. The energy from the sun in one day is 1.4e22J not 1.4e21. My bad, pesky order of magnitudes.
Some numbers! If the ship is just 100kg with cargo, then you need 6.36e22 J to get to .99999998c assuming 100% efficiency. About 1.4e21 J hits earth everyday from the sun. So a earth sized solar panel will collected the energy required in about 4 and half days. All assuming no energy losses.
Methods that make Thorium reactors have a small waste foot print, can also be used with Uranium. As for bomb concerns... you can make a bomb from U233 which is what you get when breading from Th. Th fuel cycle is not really more resistant in this regard. The molten salt reactors can even be a little worse since Pa is separated out chemically and left to decay into U233... nice pure bomb metal... or close enough.
But proliferation concerns are overrated at best.
You get and extra 60x that if you reprocess your waste. You also reduce your nuclear waste by a factor of 60 as well. And then there is Th and U in the oceans. Basically more than enough fuel for many thousands of years.
Nuclear *with* reprocessing is not short sighted. The waste can be on the order of a few tons per year and can be safe in a few 100 years with current plans for waste management. Problem is, its still cheaper to just not reprocess and in the US there is no commercial incentive to produce less waste. Radioactivity is not the big boogie man its made out to be. Some waste from plastic manufacture are a lot more poisonous and never break down and yet we deal with a lot of that sort of thing all the time. Proper management is easily doable.
But pretending that all the problems are solved with fossil fuels by pumping back into the ground is naive at best, and ignorant at worst. You have not idea of the scale of even a 1GW power station. And you can't replace a 1GW plant with 1GW of wind turbines or solar... you need either massive storage facilities and/or massive over generation capacity...which results in expensive electricity.
Thanks. Its not like there are not alternative ways to get your media, TV shows, movies or otherwise. The submitter has sold privacy for convenience. Convenience of mere entertainment no less. Privacy is not getting taken away, we are giving it up freely.
As I now work with developmental biologists, i can assure you that "your genes" play far less of a role for many things that standard dogma leads us to believe (yes there are plenty of things it does effect). Yes some people will be taller, but this generation is the taller because of better nutrition.
Environmental effects that can have an equally real impact on things. And we are a long way from understanding the transcriptome at the level suggested by these kind of "correlations"
You got a citation for that.....
Dirac is pretty CPU expensive. Even more so than h.264, and thats saying something.
And thats why the lawyers don't want to say either. And they seem to take a long time to say "not sure", bloody billable by the hour.
However a PC with software is software, and no one has had problems with that here... ie they can't be covered by patents.
By making you agree to these terms before giving you a license for an encoder/decoder. So the contract to encode, is that you pay to upload what you have produced.
So if I make a better chip maker, i can license it with fees on the total number of chips produced rather than a fixed fee on the device.
Patents in this cases cut far further than just the cost of getting a license. Its the fine print that can be put into this license.
Just look at apples products. The terms and conditions means you are not permitted to encode anything with h.264 without an extra license from MPEG LA if you are doing for commercial reasons.
In the EU where software patents are granted but currently untested as enforceable in the courts. I can legally use h.264 in software (still lawyers squirm). In the US where software patents are enforceable i cannot.
In the EU if i make a hardware player, then yes i need a license for H.264. Its needs to be more than just hardware that *could* play with the instillation of software.
Its tricky with when/who installs the software onto the hardware and lawyers don't want to give you a straight answer. But there is a legal distinction.
Then software decoders and encoders would be in the clear. But they are not. Not even in the EU....
There has been litigation attempts against h.264 and mpeg2. A license agreement specifically states that its not MPEG LAs problem and they don't promise that someone else out there wont have a patent over their codecs.
Fact is no software is safe with software patents. Especially in the US where everything is just let though.
2Mbit 1080p? whats the point? Its like a 700MB "blu ray" rip.
At the lower bit rate end of the spectrum Theora is not bad, and would be competitive if it had the same development effort that the "Open Source" H.264 codec encoders get. Personally I think both theora and h.264 look like complete crap at you tube bandwidths.
However Theora is working. Its mere existence is forcing MPEG LA to address license concerns. If Theora wasn't around, we would even be having a serious "open codec" debate, we be asking how much is licensing html 5.0 going to cost.
Its even worse than nothing. Radiation. Cosmic rays to be exact are really difficult to deal with. Then the odd Coronal mass ejection can really spice things up. Here on earth we have weak but physically massive magnetic field and about 10 tons per m2 of atmosphere to protect us.
It has often been noticed that the difference between livable areas and non livable is the cost of energy.... If you can produce really cheap energy (costs include environmental impact), then desalination plants and all sorts of marginal mineral deposits become economic. Doing things in an environmentally friendly manner also gets cheaper and much less of a burden.
Check your facts dude. Even without reprocessing, Uranium from the ocean will last many centuries. With reprocessing, the *current* non ocean reserves will last over 5000 years.
Oil is more problematic... but we shouldn't be burning it anyway... and a fission reactor can even produce liquid fuels for cars and aircraft and provide all the electricity we need.
there is too much coal in the world. Forget global warming if we get even a little close to burring all the coal we have. Most coal mines are unused because there is huge amount of far cheaper sources of coal. But if the price goes up just a little......
We already recycle aggressively here... what the hell are you guys doing....
And with 100s of years being the time frames... We will even have DD fusion by then. Thats enough for 15 billion years! The sun burns out in 5 billion.
I do believe that history tells us the US was asked to help. However some help did have a large invoice attached, and the former nation that could "project" all the power around the world had to agree to be a bit more open with trade as well.
Since enough of my family died in both the pacific and Europe locations, i am rather glad the US got involved, both with production and solders.
Half a month in total darkness is not good for any viable solar methods. He3 is about .001 ppm. Not common and certainly not extractable by any near term or even long term technology. Helium 3 is *not* radioactive, and is not even all that useful for fusion energy even if we could make it work. With current numbers a He3 reactor is about 2000x lower power density than DT. So for the cost of a 1GW fusion DT reactor you would get less than 500kW. IFF it could ever work. It will always be cheaper to deal with neutrons and T to produce He3.
You have been watching too many movies...
Your right. Its far more serious. Its copyright infringement!
I don't use a mouse you insensitive clod. If you can't do it on the command line, its not worth doing.