Thorium reactors. Yay or Nay ? by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

It's a different process , using a different fuel, which yields less waste and more power. Never said it was simple or easy. And yes, it STARTS with uranium, but only a small amount. After that, it DOES use Thorium. So, slow your roll there.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:04 AM

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

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, it STARTS WITH uranium and thorium. After that, you feed in thorium, which is TURNED INTO URANIUM ON A CONTINUING BASIS, RIGHT THERE IN THE REACTOR. The point of thorium reactors is that they are BREEDER reactors, which means they make uranium right there in the reactor. Because a whole shitload of thorium is just that- a whole shitload of thorium. By itself, it doesn't fission enough to create enough heat to warm your hands, let alone power electricity generation. Maybe you missed that minor technical detail.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:11 AM

America loves a winner!

By itself ? So what ? It needs a small amount of ignition. Far less than the reactors we're using now.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:28 AM

SECOND

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

What's all the excitement about? Physics finished with the Thorium reactor 40 years ago; engineering is what's slowing it down. You need to accept that progress will move forward at the slow and dignified pace of the average Chinese metallurgist. It will be decades before even 1% of China's electricity comes from Thorium, even though China needs it most.

The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?)

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:33 AM

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.

Why is anyone even debating rappy? He gets off on provoking people with his ridiculously empty-headed provocation.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Thanks second. Very informative an interesting video.

If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss, I don't see the harm in trying to generate ( see what I did there ? ) some light hearted, honest dialogue here as well.

More info is always better.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
By itself ? So what ? It needs a small amount of ignition. Far less than the reactors we're using now.

Apparently you've failed to see the point. Let me try t make this absolutely clear... thorium reactors don't use thorium as the fuel, they use uranium. If thorium didn't continuously TURN INTO URANIUM (no, I don't mean a one-time addition to the mix, I mean turn in to uranium every single operating second) the reactor wouldn't produce enough heat to be worth anything.

Here, let me try to make it clear. I don't know what the actual percent of uranium is required in a thorium reactor, but for the sake of argument, let's say 5% (similar to today's reactors). So to start a thorium reactor, you add 5% of uranium to the reactor to get it going. But it's not like the uranium ignites the thorium and then fissions away and disappears. After that, the thorium continues to be turned into uranium. It's the uranium itself that does that. If you were to somehow sample the reactor mix a year from now, there would still be about 5% uranium in it. Five years later, still about 5% (according to Second's video, maybe 6%). 100 years after that still about 5% (or more, assuming the reactor was still operating). The original uranium has fissioned away, but has been replaced by more uranium which is being continuously generated in situ from thorium.

I listened to the video, not sure I'm going to listen again, but I'm not sure the speaker made it clear. He was so busy promoting thorium's up-sides that he didn't want to mention the down-sides.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:18 PM

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.

Second

I'm curious if you trust the words of a businessman promoting his business to be accurate and complete information.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:23 PM

SECOND

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

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss . . .

Another Google Tech Talk from Nov 2008. Twenty minutes into the talk is about actually built liquid fluoride reactors. In 1954. Yes, 1954. 60 years ago.
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:30 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

I'm curious if you trust the words of a businessman promoting his business to be accurate and complete information.

It's clear from the Google video of '11 that govt, w/ out much regard to what the science was saying, pushed ahead w/ the LMFBR ( liquid metal fast breeder reactors ) over the molten salt reactors. (MSR)

Seems govt, and not business, is what folks should have issues in trusting.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:34 PM

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.

"Seems govt, and not business, is what folks should have issues in trusting."

You must have missed the part about the way business jumped right in.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Apparently the guy promoting thorium reactors in Second's video is basing his design on the separated-fuel or dual-liquid approach. The concept of a thorium reactors is that uranium turns thorium into uranium, and that the uranium is used as the fuel. But you can either do this by mixing the uranium and thorium together- which was the original operating design of the Oak Ridge reactor- or by separating the uranium and thorium.

The technical requirements of that separating "blanket" - that it be transparent to thermal neutrons, resistant to high levels of hard radiation, and resistant to corrosion of active high-temperature liquid salts - were such that the dual liquid design was rejected right from the start.

In addition, in order to make a thorium reactor practical, you need continuous fuel reprocessing. I don't know of ANY fuel reprocessing facility which has not seriously contaminated the environment.

Just as an aside, I think Japan has been working on a fast breeder plutonium reactor for decades, and they haven't gotten it to work.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:52 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

"Seems govt, and not business, is what folks should have issues in trusting."

You must have missed the part about the way business jumped right in.

That's what business does. Govt sets the rules, and then looks to business. MY point was that govt ignored what the science said, ignored the real world applications to the different reactors, and simply chose one over the other, probably because it yielded weapons grade material.

That was govt's doing, not business.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
MY point was that govt ignored what the science said, ignored the real world applications to the different reactors, and simply chose one over the other, probably because it yielded weapons grade material.

Science says that AGW is real. Since you are someone who rather routinely ignores what science says about real world applications, WTF do YOU care about it? You're like the typical businessman who ignores what science tells him when it's inconvenient.

Anyway, that's off-topic. My vote on thorium is still NAY.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:32 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Why is anyone even debating rappy? He gets off on provoking people with his ridiculously empty-headed provocation.

Please. Some here are trying to have a discussion.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

When rappy appeals to "science", it's time to end the discussion, since rappy has no idea what science is and only cares to listen when it tells him something that fits into his ideolog.! (It's kinda like when rappy starts appealing to "facts", you know that factuality has left the room.)

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

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!

How much radioactive waste do wind, solar, and hydro power produce?

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Thanks second. Very informative an interesting video.

If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss, I don't see the harm in trying to generate ( see what I did there ? ) some light hearted, honest dialogue here as well.

More info is always better.

Thing is, we've BEEN discussing it. And when we bring up points, or doubts, or concerns, you want to act like you're being attacked.

I do auditing for a living. I have other auditors alongside me, and a few of them have problems with the work, because of what I view as "confirmation bias" - they go into the audit looking to confirm and okay it. I go in looking at it as a challenge; I don't imagine people are trying to trick or screw me, I just think that they've likely made a mistake somewhere, and it's my challenge to find it before it gets away from us.

So I ask questions. I don't take someone's word for it. It's a skill set called "critical thinking."

What I've seen in this thread is that you're trying to present something as a false choice. You've presented something - a thorium reactor - and insinuated that it's clearly the best thing because it's cleaner than OTHER reactors (theoretically, at least). But it isn't true that our only choices are between thorium reactors and other reactors, or between thorium and coal, or oil, or gas. Our choices are between all viable energy sources.

You seem to have quite a vested interest in selling the rest of us on thorium reactors, even while claiming that you have no dog in the fight.

You say you asked for a discussion, but what you really hoped for was a cheerleading camp put on by a bunch of yes men. Sorry, but that's not what I do.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ELVIS, you must be one helluvan auditor.

I also review for a living, although I review reports of complex chemical analyses. It's my job to make sure the results are defensible in court and fully documented. Right now, we're working with a couple of procedures that haven't been fully vetted. So even though the data packages and reports have already been reviewed, it's my job to sit back and think... what might have been missed? I've caught some doozies- not because the analysts are incompetent or dishonest, but because the samples were unusual or the instrument malfunctioned in some subtle way.

I truly appreciate the chance to have discussed this topic. I had to go look up a lot of stuff, and along the way learned a lot more about breeder reactors than I ever thought possible! So thank you, ELVIS, SECOND and WIKIPEDIA for further info, and to rappy, for the original post.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:29 PM

Thank you for the kind words, SignyM.

My last audit for a major multinational got a score of "perfect." 100%. No errors found. That's because I found 47 errors and ran every last one of them down and got them corrected.

I don't go into the job thinking people are incompetent or idiots; I go in thinking they're human, and that mistakes happen, and I view it as kind of a challenge. You ever see those games where you get two side-by-side pictures that look the same, but it says there are X number of differences, and asks you to find them all? I view the gig as being like that. It's more of a game - can I find the mistakes that people didn't even know they made, and correct them before the information goes upstream to the client?

If I get it wrong, though, nobody dies. Kind of not the same thing with nuclear reactors.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:33 PM

And yes, I see potential problems with thorium reactors.

Remember that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is?"

The glowing reviews - often by people who admit they have zero background in nuclear engineering or science of any kind - give me the feeling someone is trying to sell me a polished turd.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:42 PM

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.

signym

But what we didn't get in all the promotion, and what I would have appreciated, is a knowledgeable discussion of the pitfalls.

For example, there's the idea you can 'flush' a bad situation, sotto voce 'so it wouldn't be like Fukushima'. Weren't control rods supposed to be the exact same handy-dandy built-in failsafe? And how did that work out? And what of a 'flushed' reactor? How DO you recover the core remnants?

Then there's the idea that you can 'always' burn off uranium from one reactor in another should you need to decommission it. But in the process of 'burning it off' you inevitably create more. They're breeder reactors after all, and they HAVE to create fissile uranium in order to function. So you never QUITE burn it off, you only delay the inevitable load of uranium that will eventually need to be disposed of.

Is there such a thing as nuclear runaway should the coolant fail? If you're depending on 'slow' 'thermal' neutrons, surely heat is a factor.

And these are the unanswered questions of a layman thought up under 30 seconds.

Maybe we should look up the opinions of scientists in the field, and not salesmen from companies looking for investors and markets (or self-important ignoramuses like rappy).

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:13 PM

America loves a winner!

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

Thanks second. Very informative an interesting video.

If folks at Google and Ted Talks deem it worthy to discuss, I don't see the harm in trying to generate ( see what I did there ? ) some light hearted, honest dialogue here as well.

More info is always better.

Thing is, we've BEEN discussing it. And when we bring up points, or doubts, or concerns, you want to act like you're being attacked.

Only because I WAS being attacked and accused of having motives which weren't mine in the first place.

Quote:

I do auditing for a living. I have other auditors alongside me, and a few of them have problems with the work, because of what I view as "confirmation bias" - they go into the audit looking to confirm and okay it. I go in looking at it as a challenge; I don't imagine people are trying to trick or screw me, I just think that they've likely made a mistake somewhere, and it's my challenge to find it before it gets away from us.

Yeah, not really caring about what you do for a living, or how you see your job.

Quote:

So I ask questions. I don't take someone's word for it. It's a skill set called "critical thinking."
Yay! That's good!

Quote:

What I've seen in this thread is that you're trying to present something as a false choice. You've presented something - a thorium reactor - and insinuated that it's clearly the best thing because it's cleaner than OTHER reactors (theoretically, at least). But it isn't true that our only choices are between thorium reactors and other reactors, or between thorium and coal, or oil, or gas. Our choices are between all viable energy sources.

First of all, I'm only bringing the issue for discussion. The TEDxTalks vid was one I found interesting, and compelling. second's Google Tech video actually expounded on the TedxTalks video.

Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments.

I never once stated, suggested or hinted, in the least, that our ONLY choices were as you claimed. But the simple fact is, as was demonstrated in the Google Tech video, was that solar power isn't as reliable or economical as other forms of energy.

Quote:

You seem to have quite a vested interest in selling the rest of us on thorium reactors, even while claiming that you have no dog in the fight.

That's entirely in your head. I have only 1 sole vested interest, and that's what's best for humanity.

Quote:

You say you asked for a discussion, but what you really hoped for was a cheerleading camp put on by a bunch of yes men. Sorry, but that's not what I do.

Again, that's YOUR own personal bias being projected into the discussion.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:20 PM

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.

"Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments."

Quotes, cites, links.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:30 PM

America loves a winner!

Did you even watch the videos ?

Or, if you like to read a lot, here are some other articles on the topic...

Quote:
Thorium and MSRs in the media

Is there a safer future for nuclear? Dr Geoff Parks, Cambridge University, June 2012

Safer nuclear – let the thorium debate begin, SmartPlanet, May 2012

New Life for Forgotten Fuel, FT Magazine, September 2011

The Nuclear Renaissance?, BBC Business Daily, September 2011

Thor Forges Safer Nuclear Power, The Sunday Times (PDF 1.6 Mb)

Thorium: the Element that Could Power our Future, Wired.co.uk, September 2011

Safer nuclear does exist, The Telegraph, August 2011

Why thorium nuclear power shouldn’t be written off, Bryony Worthington, The Guardian, July 2011

Uranium is so last century – enter thorium, the green nuke, Wired, December 2009

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/thorium/

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:45 PM

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.

They were both sales pitches. And one guy wasn't even a scientist.

So, do you have those references or not?

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:09 PM

So who do you propose will build these reactors, if the industry has been trying to quash them?

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:22 PM

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.

Thorium and MSRs in the media http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/thorium/
Is there a safer future for nuclear? Dr Geoff Parks, Cambridge University, June 2012

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/thorium/

all referenced to The Weinberg Foundation - or, as they bill themselves "Established in September 2011, the Weinberg Foundation is a UK-based not-for-profit organisation dedicated to advancing the research, development and deployment of safe, clean and affordable nuclear energy technologies to combat climate change and underpin sustainable development for the world. The Foundation operates out of Somerset House in central London."

Safe nuclear: Let the thorium debate begin By Mark Halper where Mark Halper quotes an expert named ... Mark Halper, who is not a scientist

New Life for Forgotten Fuel, FT Magazine, September 2011
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/52d7bde6-e401-11e0-bc4e-00144feabdc0.html#ix
zz2sCxJGZQh

“Not all nuclear power is equal. Thorium is inherently safer,” says Baroness Bryony Worthington, the Labour peer and campaigner for climate change. “It offers very low-cost, sustainable, safe forms of nuclear power.”

Baroness Worthington is patron of the Weinberg Foundation ...

The Nuclear Renaissance?, BBC Business Daily, September 2011
quotes ... Baroness Bryony Worthington and Soresen, a businessman promoting his business of thorium reactors

Thor Forges Safer Nuclear Power, The Sunday Times (PDF 1.6 Mb)
not available without paid subscription

Thorium: the Element that Could Power our Future, Wired.co.uk, September 2011
quotes Soresen and refers to Baroness Bryony Worthington

Safer nuclear does exist, The Telegraph, August 2011
not available in english

Why thorium nuclear power shouldn’t be written off, Bryony Worthington, The Guardian, July 2011
written by ... Bryony Worthington

Uranium is so last century – enter thorium, the green nuke, Wired, December 2009
heavily quotes ... Sorensen

You're having the same difficulty as you do with global warming ... you don't seem to know what science is.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:26 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
They were both sales pitches. And one guy wasn't even a scientist.

So, do you have those references or not?

In the video. Which quotes Dr Weinberg, who worked on the reactor @ Oakridge labs.

There's my reference.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:28 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
You're having the same difficulty as you do with global warming ... you don't seem to know what science is.

Not in the least. You're the one who ignores what's been presented, prolly because it debunks your preconceived views on the matter. Or because it's ME who is posting it.

I know full well what 'science' is. Do you ?

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:31 PM

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.

Well, when I ask for scientific references and you post salesmen and Baronesses, it does make me wonder.

So, care to try again?

"Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments."

quotes, cites, links

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:56 PM

America loves a winner!

No. Watch the gorram video. Towards the end, Weinberg is quoted. That's all you're getting from me. If you think that's insufficient, fine. I don't give 2 flips. Declare Thorium reactors the worst form of energy imaginable. I'm not here to convince you or 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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Many scientist, who actually BUILT Thorium reactors, would disagree w/ your assessments.

Rappy, you win the award for making me spew coffee on my keyboard!

Because, seeing as there was only one scientist that I know of who BUILT the thorium reactor... and he's DEAD NOW... it's a little difficult to get up-to-date opinions on the topic!

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I never once stated, suggested or hinted, in the least, that our ONLY choices were as you claimed. But the simple fact is, as was demonstrated in the Google Tech video, was that solar power isn't as reliable or economical as other forms of energy.

Ummmmmm, yeah, you really kinda did. Very early in this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
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.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No. Watch the gorram video. Towards the end, Weinberg is quoted. That's all you're getting from me. If you think that's insufficient, fine. I don't give 2 flips. Declare Thorium reactors the worst form of energy imaginable. I'm not here to convince you or anyone.

Again, playing the victim card and going to extremes. I'm beginning to suspect you're not actually an adult.

Because someone asked you a question - a VALID question - you cry out that you're being attacked just for being sweet, harmless, cuddly little old you, and then you imply that anyone who questions you in any way must believe that thorium reactors are the antichrist, the worst thing ever. No middle ground, no room for discussion or debate, just the "with us or against us" mentality that ever more clearly has become THE dominant defining characteristic of right-wing authoritarians.

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

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:42 PM