Thorium reactors. Yay or Nay ? by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:35 PM

America loves a winner!

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

A synopsis would be nice, as most folks aren't gonna spend 13 minutes listening to this guy.

500 words or less?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:41 PM

America loves a winner!

Thorium - available, clean,cheap, abundant, safe.

Any other questions ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Produces high-level long-lived radioactive waste, just like "regular" reactors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:13 AM

If you say it's "safe", ask yourself this:

Would you be comfortable with Iran having one? Or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Libya, or Egypt?

If not, then you don't really believe they're safe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

I guess I didn't realize these were the only possible choices offered to us.

So it's either thorium reactors or coal, and there's not even the slightest possibility of anything else?

By the way, if I say okay to thorium reactors, does that mean you'll agree to get rid of all the coal, oil, and LWR plants?

If I agree to put a thorium reactor in, say, Pennsylvania - can we agree to no coal or oil exploration, no fracking, no stuff like that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 7:29 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Produces high-level long-lived radioactive waste, just like "regular" reactors.

Though not with the dangers that comes with LWR, like high pressure , for one.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 7:34 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, we're all fine w/ coal, oil and LWR power plants then, right ?

OK.

I guess I didn't realize these were the only possible choices offered to us.

And now you do.

But hey,if you have any other suitable sources of energy, by all means, let's hear it.

Quote:

So it's either thorium reactors or coal, and there's not even the slightest possibility of anything else?

Well, Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry already, so there at least needs to be some sort of replacement of energy production lost, right ? Sure as hell isn't coming from the fine folks @ Solyndra !

Quote:

By the way, if I say okay to thorium reactors, does that mean you'll agree to get rid of all the coal, oil, and LWR plants?

If I agree to put a thorium reactor in, say, Pennsylvania - can we agree to no coal or oil exploration, no fracking, no stuff like that?

Maybe not NONE, but I'd think if the results warranted, we could get by with a lot fewer. And that would be a positive start, right ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 10:41 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

"How thorium energy works

Unlike uranium, thorium can’t split to make a nuclear chain reaction — in scientific terms, it isn’t fissile. However, if it is bombarded by neutrons from a fuel that is fissile, like uranium-235 or plutonium-239, it’s converted to uranium-233, itself an excellent nuclear fuel. After the process begins, it’s self-sustaining — fission of uranium-233 turns more thorium nearby into the same nuclear fuel. There are complexities beyond the scope of this article, including the mechanics of molten-salt versus pressurized-water reactors in burning thorium, but the reaction described above is the main appeal of thorium, and its principal promise."

Thorium vs. uranium

Thorium is an appealing alternative to uranium to many countries. It is both more cheap and more abundant than uranium, whose price is expected to rise yet more as backlash from the Fukushima disaster dies down, according to Energy and Capital." - http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/17236/thorium-an-alternative-for-nucle
ar-energy.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 10:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

However, like all fission processes, it produces high-level radioactive byproducts. FWIW, I'm against fissioning of any sort for energy production. Even if reactors never have any accidents, they produce tons and tons (no exaggeration) of highly-radioactive nuclear waste. And we STILL haven't figure out what to do with it. Thorium reactors produce "less" waste, but we still haven't even figured out how to reprocess/recover thorium fuel. Unlike the PUREX process (plutonium/uranium extraction) the THOREX process is still theoretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Quote:
...'these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-ura
nium
But as a sink for government money and as an investment boomlet based on taxpayer subsidies, it looks great.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 11:05 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

"Thorium Problems

Supporters of thorium believe it will be a clean-burning fuel source, but those concerned about the environment are not as convinced. Thorium supporters may have a hard time making an argument about thorium’s use as a clean fuel when renewable energy is making headway around the world.

On a practical level, despite thorium’s use in certain reactors, mass production of this new metal is another story. Scientists have pointed out the cost burden in producing thorium on a wide scale, and other analysts have noted that maximum generation of thorium would require technology that is years ahead of today’s advancements. Billions of dollars have already been geared towards thorium generation, with little to show regarding mass energy output.

And although it shows potential, thorium-based energy is very much in its theoretical stage." -- www.energyandcapital.com/articles/thorium-the-next-nuclear-fuel/4145

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 1:13 PM

I think AuRaptor has shown that he's not interested in having a serious discussion about this subject.

Even the stuff he supposedly posts as an effort to start a real discussion, he can't avoid trolling.

Lesson learned, and no further efforts need ever be made to engage subject. There is no intelligent life there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 5:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

I think AuRaptor has shown that he's not interested in having a serious discussion about this subject.

Then you think wrong. I posted this specifically to get thoughts on the matter. I didn't prejudice the process by stating I was for or against.

Quote:

Even the stuff he supposedly posts as an effort to start a real discussion, he can't avoid trolling.

Such as ? My "Solyndra " comment ? How is that "trolling " ? Or my remarks about the coal industry and Obama ? HE made that very declaration himself. It's not ME who is making that claim. Seriously, enough w/ this bogus 'trolling' bullshit. Stand up and discuss, or get the fuck out of here.

Quote:

Lesson learned, and no further efforts need ever be made to engage subject. There is no intelligent life there.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 24, 2014 5:49 PM

WHOZIT

He looks like he wants to kill James Bond.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 25, 2014 7:23 AM

We're told - constantly - by the right that solar and other renewables are "real" alternatives, because if they were, there'd be so many more of them installed already. (Never mind that Germany has installed so much solar capacity that they've permanently pulled about half their nuclear power plants offline.)

The argument seems to go "Well if it's such a great alternative, why isn't it everywhere? Since it's not the #1 source of power, it must be crap, and therefore can't compete!" (paraphrasing there)

So I have to ask - if thorium reactors are so good, why isn't everyone using them? Solar has more than doubled its installations in the last year, wind power installations are increasing steadily, but I've yet to see a thorium reactor in my backyard, so they must just be a fad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:03 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

We're told - constantly - by the right that solar and other renewables are "real" alternatives, because if they were, there'd be so many more of them installed already. (Never mind that Germany has installed so much solar capacity that they've permanently pulled about half their nuclear power plants offline.)

The argument seems to go "Well if it's such a great alternative, why isn't it everywhere? Since it's not the #1 source of power, it must be crap, and therefore can't compete!" (paraphrasing there)

So I have to ask - if thorium reactors are so good, why isn't everyone using them? Solar has more than doubled its installations in the last year, wind power installations are increasing steadily, but I've yet to see a thorium reactor in my backyard, so they must just be a fad.

Doubling of solar or wind isn't all that impressive. When you have a minuscule number of installations to start with, and then double that number, it's still a minuscule total. One of the early tricks to advertising and b.s. spinning I learned was how to fudge numbers and stats to make them SEEM spectacular and amazing ( see what I did there ? ) is to make minor achievements seem like major ones.

I'm glad no Thorium reactors have magically sprung up in your back yard. That really makes the point that they must not have any value, what so ever. Excellent deduction.

C'mon.. THORium ? Doesn't that just sound cool and all Avengery ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:13 AM

Thank you for agreeing with me. It's true, if we doubled the number of thorium reactors providing power to this country, we'd have a truly miniscule number: zero.

You can try to fudge that number and bullshit us and spin it, but the truth stands: Wind and solar are currently providing infinitely more power in this country than thorium reactors are. What you see as the power of the future literally does not even exist in this country, yet you'll instantly dismiss power sources which DO exist and ARE working.

Spinning bullshit is your stock in trade.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:55 AM

America loves a winner!

The power generated by 2 thorium reactors would exceed all the solar/ wind power combined.
So, no. I wasn't agreeing with you.

And if you have axes to grind, as to the specific +'s and -'s of Thorium reactors, tell it to the guy from the video I posted. All I'm doing is laying the issue on the table.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The power generated by 2 thorium reactors would exceed all the solar/ wind power combined.

Under what conditions? With what kind of investment? I'd have to say that this statement is pure, baseless speculation.

Quote:
And if you have axes to grind, as to the specific +'s and -'s of Thorium reactors, tell it to the guy from the video I posted.

Oh, wait... you mean YOU don't want to hear the +'s and -'s of thorium? You posted this online just to... what? Troll?
Huh! Whooda thunk?

Sounds like rappy has found hisself another hobby-horse. Yee ha!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:40 AM

America loves a winner!

EC was taking, as are you, pointless personal shots at ME , as if I were some advocate for TR. I presented a video on the subject, and asked for comments. What I got was mindless rhetoric about the virtues of solar and wind ( both unreliable for a sustained power source ) and dismissal of TRs, out of hand.

Seems like the only one jerking anything off is you, Sig.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I presented a video on the subject, and asked for comments

Which you apparently now don't want to hear.

Quote:
What I got was mindless rhetoric about the virtues of solar and wind

No, you got specific objections to thorium because of the production of tons (hundreds of tons) of radioactive contaminants, and the inability (so far) to reprocess thorium. I'd quote it for you but, hell, this is a short thread, just scroll up several posts, you'll find it if you're interested. And then you decided to make totally baseless comments of your own on the topic of solar and wind.

Quote:
( both unreliable for a sustained power source )

More baseless bloviating

Quote:
and dismissal of TRs, out of hand.

Again, not out of hand, very specific.

Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:26 AM

America loves a winner!

I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

So it's more of an "and" scenario? ;)

Quote:

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

But thorium reactors doing so ARE NOT "fact". It's mere speculation and conjecture, bullshit and spin as you call it. And according to you, even if 97% of all scientists agreed that it was real, it would still be a hoax.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:43 AM

America loves a winner!

More lies.

" according to you... ". Arriving at imaginary positions never once dtated by me.

So, are YOU saying thorium is hoax? That no working reactor has been made ? Asking for clarification.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:01 PM

Quote:

Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

No need to be choosy. It can be (and is) both.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, are YOU saying thorium is hoax? That no working reactor has been made ? Asking for clarification.

Is thorium a hoax? Unknown. What I *DO* know is this: there is not currently any commercial-grade thorium reactor in this country "producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale." (Note: I'm using your metrics for what you would rate as a successful power source when it comes to wind or solar and applying those same requirements to thorium-based MSRs)

You're trying to spin and BS your way into a false dichotomy. If you can prove that a working reactor has been made, ever, anywhere, it validates your point, you seem to think. Will you give wind or solar the same pass? Has wind or solar power ever been used, anywhere?

Asking for clarification of YOUR position.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

So it's more of an "and" scenario? ;)

Quote:

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

But thorium reactors doing so ARE NOT "fact". It's mere speculation and conjecture, bullshit and spin as you call it. And according to you, even if 97% of all scientists agreed that it was real, it would still be a hoax.

Clearly its a "fact" that wind and solar don't come close to producing as much energy as an imaginary scenario.

Cute how it keeps ignore the specific reservations in order to claim no one gives specifics...

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The power generated by 2 thorium reactors would exceed all the solar/ wind power combined.
So, no. I wasn't agreeing with you.

Theoretically. Of course, you have no way of knowing that, since you can't show me any place where two thorium reactors have come online and replaced or exceeded "all the solar / wind power combined."

I could as easily say that there are wind and solar power designs that can replace half a dozen nuclear reactors, as has already been done.

Difference being, mine isn't pure hypothetical or conjecture; it's fact. It's being done, and it's been done.

Quote:

And if you have axes to grind, as to the specific +'s and -'s of Thorium reactors, tell it to the guy from the video I posted. All I'm doing is laying the issue on the table.

You don't want to hear "+'s and -'s", though. You want to post your pluses and ignore any minuses that might get posted.

You keep trying to claim as "fact" some claims made by people with a vested interest in selling you something.

I've no axe to grind, I'm just asking questions and clarifying details.

Show me a commercial-grade thorium reactor in the United States that is currently providing more than half the amount of commercially-available energy as all of the solar and wind power in this country combined. That is your premise. You say two such reactors could outdo ALL of the wind/solar combined, so I'm asking for proof. I'll even handicap it for you. Show me just ONE such reactor that's currently operating at such capacity. Remember, since two would outdo ALL of the wind & solar in this country, show me just one that's providing 51% as much as all the wind and solar in this country.

I'll hang up and listen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:26 PM

America loves a winner!

Safe to put EC & Storybook in the " nay " column?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I take it you did NOT watch the video ? Many issues brought up were discussed.

Quote:
Either you're a master troll, or you're so completely fucking clueless on what it means to have a ACTUAL DISCUSSION that there's really no point in posting to you.

False premise on the 'either / or 'scenario.

So it's more of an "and" scenario? ;)

Quote:

And it's not 'baseless bloviating' to admit that solar / wind are NOT anywhere near as reliable in producing steady, commercial grade power , cheaply, on a large scale, as nuclear, coal, or hydro. It's FACT.

But thorium reactors doing so ARE NOT "fact". It's mere speculation and conjecture, bullshit and spin as you call it. And according to you, even if 97% of all scientists agreed that it was real, it would still be a hoax.

Clearly its a "fact" that wind and solar don't come close to producing as much energy as an imaginary scenario.

Cute how it keeps ignore the specific reservations in order to claim no one gives specifics...

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Exactly. The power that solar and wind are already producing in no way compares to what some theoretical design *might* produce, maybe, someday.

As I said, if even 97% of scientists agree that it would produce such power, it can still be labeled as a complete hoax, as we've seen time and time again from the right.

Meanwhile, AuRaptor - who claims to have been taught specifically how to spin and BS - is trying to play the victim card now, whining that people are taking personal shots at him for pointing out that he's trying to spin his BS. He plays the victim card so often I'm surprised he doesn't carry body chalk around with him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Safe to put EC & Storybook in the " nay " column?

Is there only "yay or nay"? Is there no "undecided" or "unconvinced" column?

You're either with us or against us, I guess.

That's a right-wing viewpoint at its core. Black or white, with or against, never any grays or in-between levels of nuance.

That you haven't utterly convinced me of the safety of thorium reactors by posting a single cheerleading video about them is your failing, not mine.

BTW, you've never said whether you were a "yay or nay" on the matter.

Afraid to take a stand on your own post?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:54 PM

America loves a winner!

Wasn't trying to sell one or t'other . You wanna be " undecided "? Be my guest. It's a free country and all that, right?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

BTW, you've never said whether you were a "yay or nay" on the matter.

Afraid to take a stand on your own post?

And you got your answer.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:54 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

BTW, you've never said whether you were a "yay or nay" on the matter.

Afraid to take a stand on your own post?

And you got your answer.

Yes, he did. Thank you, Cpt Obvious .

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 12:00 PM

There ya go, Shiny - it is too afraid to answer its own question. And it even admits it.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 12:17 PM

America loves a winner!

Fear is what you have in yourself. I put the issue out there for discussion. It's your small, tribalistic mind that automatically kicks in with " friend or foe " attitude, with out dealing with the topic.

Like the idea of TR? Y or N . And why.

Too much for you to process, it seems.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 12:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's your small, tribalistic mind that automatically kicks in with "YAY or NAY " attitude, with out dealing with the topic.

Fixed it for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
It's your small, tribalistic mind that automatically kicks in with " YAY or NAY " attitude, with out dealing with the topic.
Fixed it for you.

Such a pathetic creature, demands a yes or no answer, refuses to even answer its own question, lies and says it has, all while pretends people haven't been discussing their reservations about it.

You have to wonder if it has some sort of mental defect that makes it incapable of processing the words it sees. Or if its just the biggest asshole ever. Maybe both.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 1:42 PM

America loves a winner!

Wow. What cowards . I simply asked. I " demanded " nothing. When it was posed that " undecided " could be a 3rd option, I agreed , if that's how one wanted to reply.never lied anywhere in this thread, and it's funny to see you fall back to that tired , old line.

Y'all are just trolling because you don't want to deal with the topic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 4:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Good point.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 31, 2014 5:58 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Good point.

Childish, moronic point, actually.

@EC - I put up a video to be watched for the purpose of discussing what you saw, and whether it piqued your curiosity, or not, and why.

Sounds like you, as well as the others who have replied, have dismissed the mere CONCEPT, out of hand, simply because I'm the one who posted the video.

If not for me, is it because it's by those TEA Party lovin' folks @ TED talks ? Is that it ?

Or was it because the speaker is of middle eastern dissent, and you simply don't trust them types ?

Seriously, why the knee jerk vitriol ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have categorically rejected fission power because of the fact that each reactor generates hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste per year. I don't think that I should have to respond to every single point by this fantasist. My answer is still NAY because he has not proposed a solution to this life-threatening problem. Got it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:16 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I have categorically rejected fission power because of the fact that each reactor generates hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste per year.

Where the heck are you getting your info ?

In today’s light water reactors, it takes 250 tones of natural uranium to produce 1 gigawatt of electricity for 1 year. 1 GW is about the average size of a typical, current generation, nuclear reactor. A 1GW light water reactor produces 35 tons of spent nuclear fuel which is highly radioactive for 10,000 to 1 million years. The USA currently has total electricity generating capacity of 1050 Gigawatts.

By comparison, a theoretical thorium based LFTR type reactor consumes 1 ton of cheap thorium and produces 1 ton of waste, most of which is radioactive for 10 years, the remaining for 300 years.

To replace all coal, gas and conventional nuclear generating capacity in the US (929GW) with LFTR reactors, would theoretically require 929 tons of thorium and produce 929 tons of waste per year. 929 tons of thorium is 82 cubic meters in volume.

So to replace all current US coal, gas and nuclear generation capacity requires just 3 standard 40’ shipping containers of thorium per year and produces the same amount of waste.

http://www.2112design.com/blog/lftr/

100's of tons ? Only if you're converting ALL the power required to run the US. I'm pretty sure that's not what is being imagined, by anyone.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:46 PM

You're still trying to argue theoreticals as if they are facts.

1 ton of spent nuclear fuel ? 1 ton of nuclear waste.

1 ton of spent nuclear fuel + everything it touches and everything it's encased in and encapsulated within and buried with and contaminates = nuclear waste.

You may as well argue that Fukushima only created a few gallons of radioactive water.

And remember, what you're arguing for is THEORETICAL. It's only a theory, like the idea of people having anything to do with climate change. Right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:07 PM

America loves a winner!

It's not entirely theoretical if they've already built smaller scale reactors, 40+ YEARS ago.

Unlike AGW, which constantly gets disproved, in the REAL world, over and over and over.

And in the example I gave, I compared apples to apples. Spent fuel to spent fuel. Sorry if that distorts your claim ( sorry, Siggy's claim ) that 1 reactor creates " 100's of tons of radio active waste per year ).

Talk about spin!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:33 PM

REAVERFAN

Sounds like a last ditch effort from the nuclear industry to stay relevant, at the cost of more irradiation.

Time to leave those fools behind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:40 PM