LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-08-2013, 01:48 PM   #76
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,560

Rep: Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
You should rather be annoyed about that particular scientist, not about science as a whole. If you really are interested in how it is possible to have a universe popping up into existence I recommend the book "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, it doesn't need to relable things to explain how it could have worked. I would sent you my copy, but sending things down-under is a little bit to expensive for me currently.
No not at all, I am , and should be annoyed with Science and apologists for it who push an agenda on a topic they have no clue about. "If you are really interested in" nice start to a sentence there, if I wasn't interested I wouldn't be commenting. I have a wide background to many things through life experience, studies and teaching. It is my job to know things so I can pass on an unbiased view to my students giving them an opportunity to see all facets of a topic so they can make up their own minds on what they believe is reality.
 
Old 03-08-2013, 01:52 PM   #77
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,560

Rep: Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel View Post
@k3lt01: It seems we agree in this thread.
Lol, I realise we don't agree on much, it is interesting we agree here though, and even when we don't agree I still respect your right to an opinion and am willing to discuss it with you.
 
Old 03-09-2013, 06:01 AM   #78
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Debian Land
Posts: 1,320

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by caravel View Post
The capitalist enterprises behind both fossil fuels and atomic energy don't really care about the planet, global warming, etc... let's be honest about it shall we? To pretend otherwise, to suppose that the big bosses of the major global energy companies are wringing their hands over the future of the planet would be just a little naive... Both sources of energy have the potential to destroy the planet in their own unique ways. If a good proportion of the world switched to atomic in the next few years however, industrial pollution, traffic pollution, pollution from air travel, etc would all still be there and still growing with the population and as countries develop and industrialise.

Everyone should probably read about Fukushima before they decide if nuclear energy is a good/bad thing. It's not making the news these days because there's other sensationalist crap making the headlines.
Quite frankly said, but you are actually right.

Fukushima is likely to be the last catastrophic event
 
Old 03-09-2013, 08:43 AM   #79
rudemeister
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Distribution: OpenSuse 12.3 64-bit
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
This subject has interested me for a long time. There is a source of energy that has not been discussed and that is thorium based nuclear reactors. Thorium reactors have many of the advantages of uranium/ plutonium based technology, but with better safety and ulitimately lower cost. The greatest potential technology using thorium as fuel would be the LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor). These plants could be small, de-centralized, cheap and safe. Thorium fuel reactors have few of the safety issues associated with the reactors presently used. It also has a very low chance for weapon proliferation. If you're interested in these you might just Google "LFTR". Here are some links too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_...horium_reactor

http://energyfromthorium.com/

http://youtu.be/nYxlpeJEKmw
 
Old 03-09-2013, 03:29 PM   #80
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,331
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342
Thanks for sharing, Sounds cool. I'm always hoping posters notices my signature saying 'photosynthesis to hydrogen'

I have seen (think on NOVA) molten salts (used differently) in solar collectors to, hold the heat longest and generates electricity long into the night. Sadly the problem most feel is the cost of green tec too high but then they don't need to buy any f#!king fuel.! Anything to kill a mountain and have jobs to brake backs i guess?

Last edited by jamison20000e; 03-09-2013 at 04:02 PM.
 
Old 03-09-2013, 06:28 PM   #81
rudemeister
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Distribution: OpenSuse 12.3 64-bit
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
One of the most important considerations of energy production is the cost per kilowatt. LFTR energy could be potentialy be lower than coal. It is much cleaner too. In addition, thorium is hyper-abundant. It also does not generate the waste products that uranium based reactors do. An LFTR could actually be used to generate power from old nuclear waste and render in practicaly inert in the process.
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:27 PM   #82
jefro
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,013

Rep: Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356
People seem to confuse nuclear with some sort of wild grass. Disasters like Fukushima are like any disaster. It is a collection of small issues that could have been prevented. You can't make more radioactive product easily. It is all here on the earth and has been keeping the earth warm for millions of years. It is the energy inside the earth that is, so far, keeping us alive. It is out in space, it is the energy that drives the sun even. You can't escape it by any easy means. Fukushima didn't release any more energy than was already on earth. The only major sad part is the Japanese culture is not good under disaster, well maybe tied with Katrina local government. Why can't people ask for help when they get in trouble? Hey, can we get some generators flown in by US helicopters? That was all that was needed to prevent most of the damage in Fukushima.

The point of the entire issue is people using energy. It is not greedy people who get rich by forcing energy on us. It is the people asking for energy. Sheeze! There is no free lunch. Burning fossil fuels, or using nuclear energy is all going to kill us. It will help kill the planet. Nuclear may be a less dangerous way to kill the planet is all.

I saw a bumber sticker in Texas a while ago. "If you don't own an oil well, you'd better get one!" How true. The joke was more of the fact that seemingly everyone here has an oil well. If I had one, I'd darn sure be pumping at $90 a barrel.

Last edited by jefro; 03-10-2013 at 12:29 PM.
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:31 PM   #83
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,560

Rep: Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post
People seem to confuse nuclear with some sort of wild grass. Disasters like Fukushima are like any disaster. It is a collection of small issues that could have been prevented. You can't make more radioactive product easily. It is all here on the earth and has been keeping the earth warm for millions of years. It is the energy inside the earth that is, so far, keeping us alive. It is out in space, it is the energy that drives the sun even. You can't escape it by any easy means. Fukushima didn't release any more energy than was already on earth. The only major sad part is the Japanese culture is not good under disaster, well maybe tied with Katrina local government. Why can't people ask for help when they get in trouble? Hey, can we get some generators flown in by US helicopters? That was all that was needed to prevent most of the damage in Fukushima.
It has been a very long time since I have read such a simplistic and out of touch view of the issue of nuclear energy, not to mention a xenophobic view of Japanese culture. If it is energy that is already on the planet and it is no more dangerous either way then why use it in a bomb? Fact is nuclear is dangerous when it is not controlled, no amount of generators flown in by US helicopters was going to stop Fukushima once it started.
 
Old 03-10-2013, 02:42 PM   #84
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,331
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342
math > radio > tv > microchip > synthetic-diamond > K1-for-everyone ... "just sayin"
 
Old 03-11-2013, 07:07 PM   #85
rudemeister
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Distribution: OpenSuse 12.3 64-bit
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Here are some more very informative articles that just appeared in the media regarding thorium based nuclear power generation:

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...isthorium.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/sc...cles.html?_r=0

Cool reading!!!
 
Old 03-11-2013, 08:36 PM   #86
jefro
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,013

Rep: Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356
Yet the reason Fukushima failed is because the backup generator was damaged. This left only battery power until the coolant dropped. Tell me why then didn't the Japanese ask for any outside help? Why don't you believe the disaster could have been prevented. Do you feel it is Fate or something?

I used to live in Japan for a few years and I feel I do understand the way they think. Japan has a very single minded way of doing things. It is very ridged in it's views and actions. Don't expect to take Western ideas and beliefs and use it there. You may be tempted to use your own feelings of how they live and think but unless you lived there and had close interaction with them you can't understand.

My time in the US Navy taught me a bit about nuclear reactors. How many have you operated?

The action of burning billions of tons of fossil fuel is no more long term dangerous than nuclear. Every day people die from exposure to hydrocarbons like benzene, mercury, particulate matter. Just because you don't see your family being killed slowly doesn't mean it is OK. There have been many studies that prove those billions of tons of fossil fuel also release radioactive material.

Last edited by jefro; 03-11-2013 at 08:41 PM.
 
Old 03-11-2013, 09:08 PM   #87
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,331
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post
You may be tempted to use your own feelings of how they live and think but unless you lived there and had close interaction with them you can't understand.
We understand "statistics" and stereotypes! And I figure your dad was in the navy?
 
Old 03-11-2013, 10:03 PM   #88
rokytnji
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 13 , Various Puppys (MacPup,Slack0),MX-14
Posts: 2,438
Blog Entries: 16

Rep: Reputation: 773Reputation: 773Reputation: 773Reputation: 773Reputation: 773Reputation: 773Reputation: 773
Quote:
My time in the US Navy taught me a bit about nuclear reactors. How many have you operated?
Now be fair jefro. . Not fair comparing apples and candy apples.

Quote:
Naval reactors undergo repeated power changes for ship maneuvering, unlike civilian counterparts which operate at steady state. Nuclear safety, radiation, shock, quieting, and operating performance requirements in addition to operation in close proximity to the crew dictate exceptionally high standards for component manufacturing and quality assurance. The internals of a Naval reactor remain inaccessible for inspection or replacement throughout a long core life -- unlike a typical commercial nuclear reactor, which is opened for refueling roughly every eighteen months.


There is no civilian demand for quiet, compact, shock-resistent nuclear propulsion systems which would keep skilled designers and production workers current. This is a distinct difference from the aerospace, electronics, and ground vehicle industries from which DOD buys many of its weapon systems.

Unlike commercial nuclear power plants, Naval reactors must be rugged and resilient enough to withstand decades of rigorous operations at sea, subject to a ship's pitching and rolling and rapidly-changing demands for power, possibly under battle conditions. These conditions -- combined with the harsh environment within a reactor plant, which subjects components and materials to the long-term effects of irradiation, corrosion, high temperature and pressure -- necessitate an active, thorough and far-sighted technology effort to verify reactor operation and enhance the reliability of operating plants, as well as to ensure Naval nuclear propulsion technology provides the best options for future needs.
I have spent time in the navy also. The red headed step child section. /man/dod/jarhead.

As far as fossil fuels go. Yeah, they hurt. That does not mean that nuclear
then becomes the option. I don't know enough about what rudemeister is saying to comment
on that much, other than Breeder reactors were picked over thorium reactors
back in the early 70's. Yeah they knew about thorium then. I guess money
speaks louder than common sense then. Oh yeah. Even now.
 
Old 03-11-2013, 10:30 PM   #89
rudemeister
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Distribution: OpenSuse 12.3 64-bit
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The reason uranium was chosen over thorium for reactor technology is because you can make nuclear weapons from the uranium/plutonium process. Nuclear weapons are produced with either u235 or pu239. 99.3% of natural uranium in u238. Uranium is the seed material to produce plutonium in a reactor. All modern nuclear weapons use plutonium as the pit. You could actually use neptunium too, but you need more of it than uranium or plutonium. Also, the americium that makes your smoke detector work can also be used. But it is way too rare. Only .7% of natural uranium is u235. Only u235 can be used for weapons or to run a reactor. The simplest means of separating u235 from u238 is by inertial separation. This means you use a centrifuge spun at very high speed. The u238 is heavier than u235 and settles to the bottom with a chemical called uranium hexafluoride. But the thorium process transmutes thorium to u233 and u232. These isotopes sustain a fission reaction. Using these for weapons production is ridiculous because the difference in atomic weight make them very difficult to separate. Although u233 is fissile, it is so close in weight to u232 that they cannot be practically and economically separated. u232 gives off such intense gamma radiation that it would rip apart the molecules and properties of the materials required to make a weapon. It also has a short half life.

Thorium is much more abundant than uranium too. In a thorium reactor, you need to seed the start process with neutrons, but with an accelerator you could do that without needing pu239 or u235. The thorium process does not require the massive containment vessel that uranium reactors require. They would be small, safe and free of proliferation worries.

So the simple answer is, thorium was never pursued because you can't really weaponize the products.
 
Old 03-11-2013, 10:47 PM   #90
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,331
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342Reputation: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudemeister View Post
*simple answer*
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Restart a user's server, or mass-kill processes ? Sabinou Linux - Security 2 01-30-2013 12:38 PM
LXer: The Nuclear Option LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-19-2007 05:01 AM
nuclear energy foo_bar_foo General 103 02-22-2006 09:36 AM
gnome panel went nuclear imbaczek Linux - Software 0 10-08-2004 01:23 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration