Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power

(Wayne Throop) writes:
: BradGuth
: If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
: figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as of
: at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

"Mook" here refers to a blowhard on the hydrogen newsgroup named Willie
Mook. That Brad thinks he's one of the two smartest folks in the world (I'm
guessing he is saving the other spot for himself) says a lot about how
kooky the BradBot is.

There's no point talking to these folks - they're simply ****ed in the
head. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.

On Aug 25, 1:48*pm, (PV) wrote:
(Wayne Throop) writes:
: BradGuth
: If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
: figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as of
: at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. *That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

"Mook" here refers to a blowhard on the hydrogen newsgroup named Willie
Mook. That Brad thinks he's one of the two smartest folks in the world (I'm
guessing he is saving the other spot for himself) says a lot about how
kooky the BradBot is.

There's no point talking to these folks - they're simply ****ed in the
head. *
--
* PV * *Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
* * * * like corkscrews.

So, you think thorium is all bad, and uranium is all good?

~ BG

On Aug 24, 10:51*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
BradGuth wrote

(Wayne Throop) wrote
BradGuth wrote
If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as
of at least a decade ago,
Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.
In other words, even you can't sell it.
What's wrong with the failsafe thorium alternative?

It isnt working right now.

Yes it makes sense to make it viable, particularly for countrys which
dont currently have any nukes, because its better proliferation wise,
but that isnt necessary in the first world, india, china, russia etc
which arent a proliferation problem.

OK, then why not do all of the next thousand new reactors (of 2.55 GW
each) as using the failsafe and much cheaper thorium?

Are you planning on a preemptive WWIII in need of a 1000:1 kill, and
yet somehow surviving?

Don't we already have enough to kill off all civilized life on Earth
at least 10 fold over as is?

~ BG

On Aug 25, 12:33*am, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: BradGuth
: If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook, can't
: figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable 1.5 TW as of
: at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. *That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

Wayne Throop * *http://sheol.org/throopw

hahahahaha.....yeah... isn't that the story of the life of our
species.

My hack was to go partisan on their asses.

It works like this:

First you have to forget about getting filthy rich, this is just part
of the corporate delusion. The only way to self-motivate to get it
done is by actually caring about life on earth. Sounds hard but the
more you look at how we destroyed this planet the more easy it
becomes. Before there can be any kind of "us" first you need to give
up on the "me me me".

Gather a large list of technologies that didn't make it. There are
many thousands of patents, often they represent the only proof the
inventor actually existed. Quite far from the historical revolution,
wealth and Nobel prizes. (except if you are Jewish of course)

Then for stage 3 of the probe, keep bothering politicians with the
technology. It is important to A) convince them the technology works
and B) make sure they know that you know they know.

Make sure you act like an idiot about it. You don't care and even if
you do you don't.

Then the lobby groups gang up on the normally so poorly informed
politicians. There is nothing as hard as to lie to a person who knows
you are lying. You might as well give up.

They might as well give up fast before the whole thing blows up in the
face: http://www.worstlobby.eu/2008/vote/info/5

I mean honestly, do you seriously think any lobby group can defeat
this level of partisanhackery?

http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/25

PWND! all the Bankor's Hummers, and all the Bankor's girlymen,
couldn't put Humpty together again.....

Ok, maybe not.

But at least I have a plan, at least I tried, this is more than we can
say for the 8 billion of you's.

It should be written liek: Nukeliar Powah, a rich source of uranium
bullet tips. Lets pretend we cant make radiation with coils just for
the pleasure of militardy laughs and global death.

http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2

Welcome to circus Terra! But your Tickets today. The Biowarfare and
pschotronics heather of war is about to begin! It will be a grand show
as usual. With nukeliar winter for desert.

No more constructive efforts, it is a big war we want and we want it
now! *screams like spoiled child*

:-)


____
http://blog.go-here.nl

BradGuth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BradGuth wrote
(Wayne Throop) wrote
BradGuth wrote

If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook,
can't figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable
1.5 TW as of at least a decade ago,

Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.

In other words, even you can't sell it.
What's wrong with the failsafe thorium alternative?

It isnt working right now.

Yes it makes sense to make it viable, particularly for countrys
which dont currently have any nukes, because its better
proliferation wise, but that isnt necessary in the first world,
india, china, russia etc which arent a proliferation problem.

OK, then why not do all of the next thousand new reactors (of
2.55 GW each) as using the failsafe and much cheaper thorium?

Because no one has a proven working design for a thorium nuke.

And you havent even shown that it is much cheaper either.

Are you planning on a preemptive WWIII in need
of a 1000:1 kill, and yet somehow surviving?

Nope, WW3 aint gunna happen now that nukes have been invented.

Don't we already have enough to kill off all
civilized life on Earth at least 10 fold over as is?

Nope. Thats always been just another pig ignorant fantasy.

*From:* Pat Flannery
*Date:* Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:09:51 -0500

wrote:

Or use a tokamak deuterium-tritium fusion reactor to generate
your neutrons. You don't need to use the reactor to produce
energy so current technology will do fine.

That's, of course, based on the theory that you could get a Tokamak
to work in regards to producing a energy+ fusion reaction, which
hasn't as yet worked, despite decades of work on the Tokamak
concept.

Pat

Thanks for reading my post so carefully.

You don't need to get more energy out than you put in if all you want is
the neutrons it produces.

It's not doing the fusion that's hard, JET has been fusing happily for 18
years.

Even JET has managed a 65% ratio, and it was never expected to break even
due to its lack of superconducting coils.

On Aug 25, 7:18*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
BradGuth wrote



Rod Speed wrote
BradGuth wrote
(Wayne Throop) wrote
BradGuth wrote
If two of the smartest folks in the world, yourself and Mook,
can't figure out how to give us that clean and extra affordable
1.5 TW as of at least a decade ago,
Oh, anybody can figure out *how* to do it. That part's easy.
Getting anybody else to *actually* do it isn't quite so easy.
In other words, even you can't sell it.
What's wrong with the failsafe thorium alternative?
It isnt working right now.
Yes it makes sense to make it viable, particularly for countrys
which dont currently have any nukes, because its better
proliferation wise, but that isnt necessary in the first world,
india, china, russia etc which arent a proliferation problem.
OK, then why not do all of the next thousand new reactors (of
2.55 GW each) as using the failsafe and much cheaper thorium?

Because no one has a proven working design for a thorium nuke.

And you havent even shown that it is much cheaper either.

Your obfuscation and perpetual denial is noted.


Are you planning on a preemptive WWIII in need
of a 1000:1 kill, and yet somehow surviving?

Nope, WW3 aint gunna happen now that nukes have been invented.

Don't we already have enough to kill off all
civilized life on Earth at least 10 fold over as is?

Nope. Thats always been just another pig ignorant fantasy.

But I didn't even mention the associated plan of a forced1000+% global
inflation, or the optional use of DDT and VX, not to mention those
intentionally dirty nukes.

What would a mere 100% inflation w/o COL benefits do to your way of
surviving? (could you even afford your own funeral?)

In other words, with no increase in whatever income, merely double the
cost of everything, and how long will you survive?

~ BG

On Aug 19, 9:51*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:25:35 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
Wayne Throop wrote
Michael Coburn
Rod Speed wrote

I bet them Russians, the French (including Canada) and especially
India could have these new failsafe thorium reactors up and running
by the dozens within a decade.

Bet they dont, essentially because they dont need them themselves.

India doesn't need more power stations?

They dont need THORIUM power stations, uranium works fine for them and
has the advantage of designs that work right now.

I dunno how many they intend to have running by, say, 2020, but their
current development projects seem to indicate *they* think they "need"
them.

Dont need to be thorium based tho.

Ever hear of exports and trade, moron?

Plus it's not like "need power" is something that a contry either does
or doesn't.

They dont need thorium based power.

THORIUM REACTORS CAN BE EXPORTED TO ROGUE STATES. *There is no
proliferation issue and minimal safety issues. *Modular thorium reactors
are built in a factory and SHIPPED to the site. *Anyone that believes a
profit maximizing export business can be created based on uranium based
nuclear power is an idiot.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

How true, and nice hearing that I'm not the one and only soul or
village idiot in favor of thorium. Our resident Big Energy "Rod
Speed" of course will always disagree, regardless of the consequences.

~ BG

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
BradGuth wrote just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage.

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
BradGuth wrote just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage.