4427
Comments (463)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
themightykekfish 1 point ago +3 / -2

I worry about nuclear I wish a pede in the industry would make an honest video.

7
FakeNametag 7 points ago +7 / -0

Pandora's Promise is interesting but I believe it was funded by Paul Allen, so it is probably shilling for some project he was involved in.

6
themightykekfish 6 points ago +6 / -0

It’s so sad we have to sift through the garbage heap of content and hucksters for one iota of truth to keep the soul warm.

We are like the garbage kids of India

2
conservatarian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Paul Allen makes me think of Bill Gates who is apparently into the TWR (traveling wave reactor), but I don't remember TWR even mentioned in the film, for what that's worth.

1
FakeNametag 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know if they worked together on nuclear projects but I think it's a safe assumption that they had conversations about it.

I wish Bill Gates would stick to things like trying to modernize nuclear and not be so involved in vaccines.

5
FemaleBodyInspectur 5 points ago +5 / -0

Bill gates should stick to being a theiving ass nerd and stfu.

2
BasedBurckhardt 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not sure how close they are. Bill was caught scheming with Ballmer on how to claw back Allen's shares in Microsoft after Allen was diagnosed with a potentially terminal illness and effectively disinheret his family.

6
conservatarian 6 points ago +6 / -0

I also recommend watching Pandora's Promise, especially if nuclear "worries" you, because it shouldn't.

Also check out Kirk Sorensen on YouTube. He did a great TED talk about 10 years ago talking about nuclear which I highly recommend if you have 9 minutes:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel

3
themightykekfish 3 points ago +3 / -0

Love you fren will do.

Keep up new posts I’m sick of garbage.

1
HocusLocus 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think Thorium Remix 2011 is Sorensen's finest technical presentation of just the nuclear essence.

2
conservatarian 2 points ago +2 / -0

For anyone who clicks this link and sees it is 2 hours long and says, "that's too long to for me to dedicate to something brand new to me", then I'll say this:

Watch the first 5 minutes. There's a compressed version of the info upfront to grab your attention.

2
MAGASquatch 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cool. Thanks for the link. It sounds very promising and if produced on mass scale (per city, per town, per neighborhood, per building), the cost per plant could come way down.

Also, if broadly accepted, it could replace the electric power grid, natural gas, green energy, and petroleum-based industries. I can't imagine why we haven't adopted this technology sooner.

Are you aware of any working Thorium-based plants?

1
conservatarian 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oak Ridge had a working MSR (molten salt reactor) running for something on the order of several months in the 1960s, but that was on the Uranium fuel cycle. The reactor in Shippingport, PA ran a Thorium fuel cycle in the late 70s/early 80s, but it was in a LWR configuration. The point there is we have DONE this. The Thorium cycle can work, and molten salts can work.

As for currently working, no I'm not aware of any. There are several small startups that are working towards a goal of launching more advanced reactor designs, but investment is thin because of the immense regulatory burden to penetrate the market. It's worth noting both India and China have active research programs into Thorium MSRs. In fact, China basically visited Oak Ridge and asked to see what worked they'd done there and the people working there were just like, "yeah, here ya go" and handed over tons of research. The original scientists were long-retired, and the people at Oak Ridge had absolutely no idea the gold mine they'd been sitting on. The story gets more and more frustrating the deeper you dig.

3
Yaemz123 3 points ago +4 / -1

Nuclear power is clean and efficient, but the fuel is too scarce to be a major part of the world's power supply indefinitely. Given known and estimated supplies, and trends in increasing efficiency of use, at current levels (11% of current world electrical production), the world's primary supplies of uranium will last about 90 years. After that, further supplies could only be gotten by extraction from granite and similar rocks, or extraction from seawater, both of which would be enormously inefficient and expensive.

Realistically, the only fuel source currently viable indefinitely is wood, although future technologies may alter that reality.

7
T-Bear 7 points ago +7 / -0

Big money is going into the fusion reactor technology race. Hydrogen (split from water) is far more plentiful than wood.

We are finding natural gas and oil are being made through an abiotic process deep down in the earth.

We have plenty of fuel for the next several centuries, if needed.

The only problem we have with it are people dead set on making millions die over the years, needlessly, by denying these fuel sources to power our grid.

Get rid of the unnecessary red tape and useless regs...let's power our grids right.

6
traveravis 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yeah, and we ran out of oil 3 decades ago

2
themightykekfish 2 points ago +2 / -0

How quaint. We are in an icarus moment