Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: Nuclear power in Australia

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Grrrr..... trash, you and your thick skull just don't get it.


    I will post it again now in red:


    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Look Trash, it doesn't matter shyte what you think or I think.
    It matters what the environmentalists think as they are the ones who are getting a big say what will be done in the future regarding energy conversion.
    And general consensus here is that Thorium MSR is considered safer including their turds. Yes they all stink but apparently significantly less according to Wiki.

    If I want more nuclear power then I will support what the environmentalists accept and even sell it with a lot of icing and cream on top.
    I will even find a white horse and stick a cone on it's head if they like Unicorns.
    I would be inherently dumb to deny their wish and tell them MSR are the same dangerous crap as conventional.

    If you have a problem accepting the advantages of molten salt reactors then take it up with the Wikipedia and file a dispute, not me I am just a messenger, albeit one with a brain.

    Good luck with your disputes:



    A key characteristic of MSRs is their operation at or close to , rather than the 75-150 times atmospheric pressure of a typical (LWR), hence reducing the large, expensive containment structures used for LWRs and eliminating hydrogen as a source of explosion risk.Another important benefit of MSRs is that they do not produce dangerous and radioactive fission gases that are under pressure, as they are naturally absorbed into the molten salt.
    A further key characteristic of MSRs is higher operating temperatures than a traditional LWR, providing higher electricity-generation efficiency, the possibility of grid-storage facilities, economical hydrogen production and, in some cases, process-heat opportunities.
    MSRs offer many potential advantages over current light water reactors:
    • As in all low-pressure reactor designs, passive decay heat removal is achieved in MSRs. In some designs, the fuel and the coolant are the same fluid, so a loss of coolant removes the reactor's fuel, similar to how loss of coolant also removes the moderator in LWRs. Unlike steam, fluoride salts dissolve poorly in water, and do not form burnable hydrogen. Unlike steel and solid uranium oxide, molten salts are not damaged by the core's neutron bombardment, though the reactor vessel still is.
    • A low-pressure MSR lacks a BWR's high-pressure radioactive steam and therefore do not experience leaks of radioactive steam and cooling water, and the expensive containment, steel core vessel, piping and safety equipment needed to contain radioactive steam. However, most MSR designs require radioactive fission product-containing fluid in direct contact with pumps and heat exchangers.
    • MSRs may make closed cheaper because they can operate with slow neutrons. If fully implemented, any reactor that closes the nuclear fuel cycle reduces environmental impacts: Chemical separation turns long-lived actinides back into reactor fuel. The discharged wastes are mostly fission products (nuclear ashes) with shorter half-lives. This reduces the needed geologic containment to 300 years rather than the tens of thousands of years needed by a light-water reactor's spent nuclear fuel. It also permits the use of alternate nuclear fuels, such as thorium.
    • The fuel's liquid phase might be to separate fission products (nuclear ashes) from actinide fuels. This may have advantages over conventional reprocessing, though much development is still needed.
    • Fuel rod fabrication is not required (replaced with fuel salt synthesis).
    • Some designs are compatible with the fast neutron spectrum, which can "burn" problematic transuranic elements like Pu240, Pu241 and up (reactor grade plutonium) from traditional light-water nuclear reactors.
    • An MSR can react to load changes in less than 60 seconds (unlike "traditional" solid-fuel nuclear power plants that suffer from ).
    • Molten salt reactors can run at high temperatures, yielding high thermal efficiency. This reduces size, expense, and environmental impacts.
    • MSRs can offer a high "specific power," that is high power at a low mass as demonstrated by ARE.
    • A possibly good neutron economy makes the MSR attractive for the neutron poor
    Corrosion risk and higher maintenance are listed as disadvantages.

    And because you are so smart you better edit all this 'bullshit' from their entry on Thorium Reactors too:



    • is three times as abundant as and nearly as abundant as and in the Earth's crust. The estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining", notes Evans-Pritchard. Almost all thorium is Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
    • It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to , designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation.": 11  Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer techniques could facilitate that process.
    • There is much less nuclear waste when thorium is used as a fuel in a — up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller, eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;: 13  "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium." The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.
    • According to Moir and Teller, "once started up [a breeding reactor] needs no other fuel except thorium because [a breeding reactor] makes most or all of its own fuel." Breeding reactors produce at least as much fissile material as they consume. Non-breeding reactors, on the other hand, require additional fissile material, such as uranium-235 or plutonium to sustain the reaction.
    • The thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste. In addition, the transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium.
    • Since all natural thorium can be used as fuel no expensive fuel enrichment is needed. However the same is true for U-238 as fertile fuel in the uranium-plutonium cycle.
    • Comparing the amount of thorium needed with coal, Nobel laureate of , (European Organization for Nuclear Research), estimates that one ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal.
    • Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.
    • Mining thorium is safer and more efficient than mining uranium. Thorium's ore, , generally contains higher concentrations of thorium than the percentage of uranium found in its respective ore. This makes thorium a more cost efficient and less environmentally damaging fuel source. Thorium mining is also easier and less dangerous than uranium mining, as the mine is an open pit—which requires no ventilation, unlike underground uranium mines, where levels can be potentially harmful.
    Don't forget you need to address and dispute all the supplied references.

    Again Good luck with all that!
    I will be waiting so see your edits published with peer reviewed scientific reference.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-11-21 at 12:23 PM.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...



  • #62
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post

    And yes you should always consider my posts as humour. Like my points above directed at Fester, I'm not angry at him. You can safely assume that I am saying things with a lot of humour, sarcasm and I am always laughing at anything that deviates from normal or reality.

    That one deserves a separate response as it is off- topic but important as I see you as a valued member, so I need to get something off my chest.

    You might find your more recent bogan style amusing but I liked you better when you provided scientific facts.
    I love humour if it is original and has wit. Humour and can be sometimes even inspirational but yours is getting boring and repetitive lately.


    To me it looks more like that country living may have not done you well or something is frustrating you.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 12-11-21 at 12:10 PM.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • #63
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    4,088
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 3,229 Times in 1,451 Posts
    Rep Power
    1287
    Reputation
    47674

    Default

    No, you don't get it Fester, you're reciting doctrine. Quoting references which say one thing to support your opinion which is something different and you don't realise it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    You might find your more recent bogan style amusing but I liked you better when you provided scientific facts.
    And this problem is that you can't tell them apart when mixed together.

    To me it looks more like that country living may have not done you well or something is frustrating you.
    Nice try, an appeal to emotion. Yes fvckwitts frustrate everybody. Welcome to planet Earth.

    You cut and paste from wikipedia with the claim you understand it. You clearly don't from your previous comments.
    I can sum your rhetoric up in a couple of words. Cave man accent; "Thorium good, Uranium Bad"

    Yes, you are correct that I have no influence over this outcome nor do I need to. As I said, I like Thorium reactors.
    What I can do however is when somebody says something which isn't true, point it out.
    You're like a religious person. You're not going to reconsider your position because it doesn't suit your politics or your ego.
    What I can do is point out to your audience that you're not telling the truth. You take factoids and then talk it up.
    This reactor was only driven by an old lady to church on sundays.

    Your last post is an example. You cut and past all the advantages, none of which I disagree with.
    We'll not bother with the disadvantages, nobody needs to see that because Thorium's shit don''t stink.

    I'm happy to go through each of the advantages and disadvantages one by one and you can tell us all about each point from the world of Fester and I will point out where your views are distorted to what is real.


    Lets just go back to the very first example.
    China has recently looked into molten salt Thorium reactors that has certain benefits especially regarding safety
    What are the benefits? Let me guess, "These reactors can't be made into weapons and can't melt down as easily. ... uses naturally occurring, mildly radioactive thorium salts instead of uranium."
    Well that just sounds like Uranium is evil.

    It is claimed that the reason why they were never continued back then was that it's byproducts could not be weaponised.
    And yet both the USA and the Soviet union did. You bought the bullshit, and that is evidence of you selling it.

    Now sure, what's one mistake on a forum?

    The test reactor is allegedly only 3x2.5m so it fits in my back yard and 2MW will do me and my guitar amp nicely
    This is of course a joke. But Lucas Heights is 14MW and is the size of a 20L bucket. You'll notice it doesn't fit in anybody's backyard.
    They bitch about being able to see it from their backyard.

    "Normal high pressure reactors are a bit like standard Li-Ion batteries, do something slightly wrong and you have a thermal runaway effect(or in reactors a meltdown) and they explode with great heat. Therefore a lot needs to be done so that doesn't happen. So much can go wrong here with human error."
    FUD - Fear uncertainty and doubt. This is selling bullshit. High pressure reactors are not inherent monsters, unstable, dangerous or accidents waiting to happen.
    "Therefore a lot needs to be done so that doesn't ..." This describes a lot of things humans do.

    Here we go folks, entertain yourself with this small list of bad things.


    Molten salt Thorium reactors are a bit like LiFePO4 batteries. You can overheat, overcharge, drill a hole in them and nothing happens other that they might puff up a bit.
    Again, selling the bullshit. I can't tell if you honestly believe this or it's just an analogue for your oversimplified view of what doesn't happen.
    Are you saying you can do bad things to them and nothing bad happens? Because that is never true for anything.

    If something doesn't seem right the reactor automatically just drains the fuel with a fusible plug safely in an underground tank.
    Ok, this one is a good example of what is true but what Fester doesn't understand and gives an impression that unicorns fart rainbows.
    This scenario is not a good one. This is what rabid greens would call a "Thorium meltdown". That is selling bullshit.
    It's not all rainbows and happiness nor is it a trivial precautionary response to a minor problem.

    What's true here?
    Think of this like putting a big parachute on a commercial airliner. The big parachute is not your second chance, it's your last chance !
    The parachute opens and 300 tones of aluminum and people hit the ground soft enough not to kill all of them immediately.

    If this system activates, something unforeseen has gone wrong. Shit happens. In this case the molten salt should drain into holding tanks under gravity if all goes well. If the reactor isn't already damaged from the initial cause then it's a matter of letting the whole system cool down (not thermally). That can take a while.
    But lets assume the best, all the salt drained to the tanks. Everybody is happy right? No. what you have is a meltdown that is rather nicely contained.

    What you have to remember is that these tanks have to be heavily shielded because they're not just molten salt coolant.
    They're also fuel and not forgetting the really nasty fission products. You can't just go up to this stuff and "drill a hole". That is like just walking up to Chernobyl and picking up a block of harmless graphite. Because that shit don't stink!

    Lets not forget that the empty shut down reactor is also highly radioactive. There's some real problems with servicing it. It would most likely be a case of decommissioning the core. For small reactors this might be practical. For larger reactors you'd have to consider how to safely service the reactor.
    The drained coolant, well you might imagine it could be moved and processed. More likely it would be dumped. And not in barrels in the ocean, that's just another example of FUD. The dumped solid salt would be stored on site and left to cool for a few decades before being moved into a dry storage container and treated just like it's Uranium cousins.

    I can of course think of a few worse examples of what could go wrong in similar circumstance and they are just as likely to occur as the simple nice example above. This doesn't at all mean they are something common. Nor should people be afraid of them or think they are not as bad because the fuel is Thorium.
    All of these Thorium events are very rare and extreme events that are likely to never happen.
    You can still get a meltdown kind of scenario which is unpleasant to deal with but like all good reactor designs, mitigation deals with the problems in a satisfactory way. That is inherent in the design of this type of reactor. It's not the only kind of reactor with these kinds of inherent advantages. There are many types of reactors all with their own benefits and disadvantages, Thorium, Uranium and Plutonium.


    So lets sum it up in really simple terms.
    Is Thorium better than Uranium? NO
    Is Uranium better than Thorium? NO
    Is Plutonium better than Thorium? Hell yes! NO, of course not. It's just better for making big weapons if you've got a lot of spare cash.

    Are molten salt reactors better than other reactors. NO. They are different and have specific advantages and disadvantages.
    It's like asking which is a better car? A Ferrari F90 or a Nissan Patrol? The Patrol is not going to win a race unless a creek crossing is involved.
    The Ferrari is not better because it is a Ferrari.

    and Fester is not right because he blindly quotes wikipedia and then makes an appeal to authority.
    Last edited by trash; 12-11-21 at 10:11 PM.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #64
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Unlike you, I read the Wikipedia articles and can fathom all the advantages a Thorium MSR brings.
    The latest interest from China and also some small projects in the USA confirm that.

    But what you are on about with your last post, I have not a fvckn' clue.
    The list of failures is interesting but before you were always religiously claiming they are all very safe.
    It seems you can't handle being wrong when evidence is presented to you and you just explode.
    You are so in rage and blind that you also still completely missed my point.

    It is sad but I actually predicted a response from you like that.

    However you do owe me proof of your claim when the USA and Russia weaponised byproducts from Thorium molten salt reactors !??

    Edit: OK I will still not give up on you.
    Try to answer one simple question:

    Would you rather accept and sell the general consensus that Thorium MSR are safer so that Nuclear Power could be back on the table or vehemently insist that they are all the same 'shyte' and the decommission of nuclear reactors continues?

    I am not saying Australia will ever accept them because stubborn stupidness seems to be the norm here.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 13-11-21 at 09:44 AM.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    178
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked 63 Times in 44 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    1270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    No, it's all true. I really don't know where it is at the moment. But it highlights how people easily misunderstand something simple and harmless.
    I'm not a nuclear professional. A nuclear hobbiest yes. And there are lots of us. Plenty of people who have even built working fusion reactors.

    You don't have to be a professional to have a good working knowledge of things. I'm not a mechanic but I understand how an engine works.
    I'm not a professional astronomer, but you can see I have a good working knowledge of astronomy.
    I'm not a professional pilot, but I have no trouble flying real simulator. I'm not a professional aircraft builder but I've built lots of planes that fly.
    I've crashed a lot of aircraft and I'm not a terrorist.
    And you've highlighted what nuclear hobbyists love, that ordinary people lose their shit about anything radioactive. It's mysterious and scary.
    I know of at least two other people on this forum who collect radioactive things like I do. There's nothing illegal, dangerous or sinister about it.
    ......
    I was in the Smithsonian a couple of years ago. A guy was giving a talk and great display of space suits to a small crowd.
    To involve them he would ask them questions. Which was met with mystified silence.
    "What problems do you think an astronaut might face in space?" <crickets>
    OK, I'll pipe up a list of 20 or so hazards. The guy giving the talk asked honestly, "Did you work for NASA?"
    "No, I'm a scuba diver, the technology is much the same" Then I had to explain that to him.

    And yes you should always consider my posts as humour. Like my points above directed at Fester, I'm not angry at him. You can safely assume that
    I am saying things with a lot of humor, sarcasm and I am always laughing at anything that deviates from normal or reality.
    I do get what you you mean mate, as I often speak "Tongue-In-Cheek" and with intended humor a lot of times! The problem I've often found though,
    is that often, mere 'prose' (raw text) is difficult to convey, with true emotions/inflections of tone etc, than an actual voice, and I often get in trouble!!

    And yes, I too often apply simple logic to solving/answering questions, even when not an *expert* in certain fields!! I'll often even get people to figure
    things out by themselves! Like someone once asking me why the damn shower curtain keeps moving in to their legs. Along the lines of... "What's in the cubicle
    besides you?". "ermm, water, and air". "Is the water cold?". "no, it is hot". "So what is that water doing to the air in there?". "Warming it I guess!". "Right, so
    what does warm air tend to do?". "Ermm, rise?". "So where would there be a lower pressure then?". "At the bottom!". "Excellent, now can it stay like that?". "No,
    other air must come in I guess, to fill the space!?". "Yes, so what does that do to the curtain!?". "Ahaa, push it in I guess!" I know this is a simple example, but
    most people capable of thinking, only need to *apply* such thoughts to solve most *problems* themselves! hahaha...

    Re: the Astronaut Suit dilemma... I guess most people should/would have thought about Toileting issues!!. (Big boy nappies/diapers!). Interestingly, they now also
    have a prong device in their helmets, so they can "Scratch their Nose on!". Nothing worse than an itchy nose for distraction!! And yea, I too used to be a SCUBA
    diver, and I can thus understand a few analogies there!...

  • #66
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    My humour is probably even worse to decipher but it is always coupled with a second meaning or some hint.

    I don't have a problem with trash questioning things like the safety drain plug (which the designers would be aware of) or my tongue in cheek analogy to drilling holes in LiFePO4 batteries (smells like bubblegum and pineapple BTW) but it are his God like statements that everything is simply bullshit that he doesn't agree with.

    He needs to learn that he is posting his OPINION only and formulate himself accordingly.

    He is not the one who has been actively designing these reactors, rare spontaneous fission in a bucket of Thorium doesn't quite qualify, LOL.
    So excuse me if I follow and quote the experience from those who have, to make my point.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • #67
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    4,088
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 3,229 Times in 1,451 Posts
    Rep Power
    1287
    Reputation
    47674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Fester View Post
    Unlike you, I read the Wikipedia articles and can fathom all the advantages a Thorium MSR brings.
    Well that statement clearly isn't true.

    The list of failures is interesting but before you were always religiously claiming they are all very safe.
    Again, you can't Wikipedia and fathom anything.

    It seems you can't handle being wrong when evidence is presented to you and you just explode.
    You are so in rage and blind that you also still completely missed my point.
    Are you trying to describe me or yourself?
    Ad hominem

    It is sad but I actually predicted a response from you like that.
    Have you consider you might have a promising career as a psychic.

    However you do owe me proof of your claim when the USA and Russia weaponised byproducts from Thorium molten salt reactors !??
    Are you now moving the goal posts Fester?
    Lets clarify what Fester is doing here for the readers.
    The topic is that Thorium is a wonderful nuclear fuel because it can't be weaponised.
    That statement is not true in any sense. Pretty much anything can be weaponised.
    In context of Thorium however that weaponisation usually refers to a fission based nuclear bomb.
    Thorium 232 is bred to Fertile U233. Thorium reactors are inherently breeder reactors. This itself is nothing sinister.
    Thorium can breed Uranium 233 and then that U233 is processed as the fissionable material for a bomb. The details of U233 based weapons are interesting in their own right.

    So right up Fester is wrong about Thorium being capable of being weaponised. This is the kind of thing people who don't know anything about Thorium reactors say because everything they have learned is from the media. "Thorium the nice nuclear."

    Now Fester is moving the goal posts to say molten salt reactors "haven't" be used to produce weapons material and with this he is implying they can't because there is no evidence that they have. That statement is also incorrect andt is an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy,
    The reactor doesn't care what you use it for and there is no interest in developing these types of reactors for Th/U233 weapons. Design focus and optimisation is on power production. This is in conflict with weapons production, it does not negate that capability.


    Would you rather accept and sell the general consensus that Thorium MSR are safer so that Nuclear Power could be back on the table or vehemently insist that they are all the same 'shyte' and the decommission of nuclear reactors continues?
    You're asking a weighted question with a false dichotomy.
    You can have thorium or nothing based on a "general consensus". What consensus? The consensus of idiots who learnt nuclear physics from watching Home and Away?

    The decomissioning of nuclear reactors continues. How's that working out for everybody?
    And how many new reactors is China building?
    And how many of those are Thorium? Did you say 2MW?? How do you look at yourself in the mirror and not burst out laughing?

    My statement still stands.
    We all want to see Thorium succeed and become a mainstream power provider.
    But what you say about it is not true, or rather, it's not correct. It's talking it up and what you say is a deception or just ignorance. But you think it's not a lie because you believe it and lots of other idiots believe it too because the media has told them it's "nicer".


    I don't know about Australians accepting thorium. I think too many ordinary people who don't know any better are too easily sold on it because they think it's good, or better than Uranium. There are the usual anti nukes who will never accept anything and will do the exact opposite and lie about all the amazing dangers. You did this to support one kind of nuclear over another like a Ford vs Holden fans.

    These are not "god like statements". My comments on this subject are very easy to understand. You are overselling Thorium based on things you don't actually understand but think you do because the media told you so and you can misinterpret a wikipedia facts. It's not just you, it's the ordinary everyday people who are being sold a good story, not reality.

    ....rare spontaneous fission in a bucket of Thorium doesn't quite qualify, LOL.
    hey hey hey there funny man. It's not a bucket, It's not spontaneous fission and it's not Thorium and you're not funny.
    The people you believe are the media, but you think their good news story is true.
    You're multilevel marketing thorium like it's Amway.


    What's the solution here? Invest in Thorium to find it doesn't deliver the expected results quick enough at the expense of Uranium and Carbon emissions and taxpayers leading us further down the road to hell.
    The correct path forward is to get nuclear power on the ground asap. That now means an off the shelf design locating reactors in places where infrastructure already exists Lidell and Hazelwood. At the same time replacing coal with gas. This is the first steps. There are more variables and choices and tradeoffs than I care to speculate on.

    Look around, everybody is building Uranium reactors, even the countries that are also developing Thorium.

    Last edited by trash; 15-11-21 at 11:24 PM.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #68
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,235
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 1,514 Times in 835 Posts
    Rep Power
    795
    Reputation
    27703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post

    I think this whole topic is heading for a meltdown lol

    PS i love that cat

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VroomVroom For This Useful Post:

    Ah-Those-Old-Days! (17-11-21),Uncle Fester (16-11-21)

  • #69
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    So right up Fester is wrong about Thorium being capable of being weaponised.
    I NEVER said you can't make weapons grade materials from Thorium !
    It also has nothing to do with shifting any imaginary goal posts when I say the development of MSRs were abandoned BACK THEN because they could not produce
    weapons grade byproducts.
    This was a fact but you seem to have a lot of trouble accepting facts.

    And how many new reactors is China building?
    And how many of those are Thorium? Did you say 2MW?? How do you look at yourself in the mirror and not burst out laughing?
    It is a test reactor, duh.
    When they succeed they are going full scale.


    Trash, you consistently excel in twisting my words, misinterpreting what I am trying to say, while staying stubbornly oblivious to the point I am trying to make.
    You are almost better at it than my wife

    MY POINT, now for the third time:
    IT DOESN'T MATTER SHYTE WHAT YOU THINK AND I THINK

    ...and you even say it yourself (edit: you left molten salt, so now I am not sure where you're going):
    We all want to see Thorium succeed and become a mainstream power provider.
    Then why not sell it's clear advantages to the mainstream, dumb politicians and ministers who decide over these things and be done with it ?!

    Your pointless OCD waffle and twist over every line I write goes no where.
    Last edited by Uncle Fester; 16-11-21 at 12:12 PM.
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •