I think I understand what you mean only in a different circumstance. Like trying to explain the advantages and disadvantages of solar, and positives and negatives of Nuclear and the varieties that both or made up of.
MSRs for example are good high heat type Nuclear Fission Reactors, but most often people will either bash on it or bash Nuclear in general even after providing evidence from the investigators did the investigations into their claims(basically the meltdowns and Fukushima). Any little nit pick of saying its wrong, or it won't work without providing a detailed explanation on the reason why and solutions to it.
I come have come to discuss this type of stuff with only 3-5 people my entire time that actually knew what they were talking about, and did provide solutions or reasons for such that it would not work unless it is under so and so(conditions, politics, people, animals, power supply & demand, economics, etc).
Like talking to a wall that refuses to clean itself each time a new graphic is added via spray paint.
I do know when people do that, but I tend to focus on those that read the comment instead of commentor unless they were genuine which would be obvious after the third response if ti even gets that far:
Adiabactic engines solves that issue. Replace the ceramic with tungsten and titanium alloy of at least 10 milimeters would be able to change the breaking issue as well as using a cooling system to cool the fuel before going through the preheating processes would raise the efficiency and "CO2" problem(there is other gases more harmful, but the temperature the engine would be running at would solve most of that as well).
Nuclear power was first by the protestors, but the main people behind that is the government with some from the Fossil Fuel industry adding to it(which then started to fall off over the years, but there is still some though). I still stand by the MSRs(Specifically Thorium based, but Uranium based is, also, an option).
The MSRs are from the 1950's and 1960's, but the design is still better even from that far back. The versions we have now are only 10 years of research from the 2 main materials that were saved from being destroyed by the corrupt people in charge. The second reason is that MSRs are the closest form to get Nuclear Fusion ( http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/tew1/ ) while barely taking that much out of the economy with a lot of potential to add to the economy besides massive projects that require a lot of power(Mass drivers to send material to space so that rockets can focus more towards sending people to space until a large enough mass driver can be safely built).
I think I understand what you mean only in a different circumstance. Like trying to explain the advantages and disadvantages of solar, and positives and negatives of Nuclear and the varieties that both or made up of.
MSRs for example are good high heat type Nuclear Fission Reactors, but most often people will either bash on it or bash Nuclear in general even after providing evidence from the investigators did the investigations into their claims(basically the meltdowns and Fukushima). Any little nit pick of saying its wrong, or it won't work without providing a detailed explanation on the reason why and solutions to it.
I come have come to discuss this type of stuff with only 3-5 people my entire time that actually knew what they were talking about, and did provide solutions or reasons for such that it would not work unless it is under so and so(conditions, politics, people, animals, power supply & demand, economics, etc).
Like talking to a wall that refuses to clean itself each time a new graphic is added via spray paint.
You have to learn to cut through people's bullshit.
"Should we get rid of emission standard because old cars don't meet them?"
"Then why are you bringing up Nuclear power plants designed in the 50s?" We've made some improvements since then.
My personal favorite,
"If it wasn't for anti-nuclear power protesters we could have built our national power grid based on Nuclear power instead of coal.
That almost seven decades worth of clean burning Nuclear power instead of coal power plants.
I do know when people do that, but I tend to focus on those that read the comment instead of commentor unless they were genuine which would be obvious after the third response if ti even gets that far:
Adiabactic engines solves that issue. Replace the ceramic with tungsten and titanium alloy of at least 10 milimeters would be able to change the breaking issue as well as using a cooling system to cool the fuel before going through the preheating processes would raise the efficiency and "CO2" problem(there is other gases more harmful, but the temperature the engine would be running at would solve most of that as well).
Nuclear power was first by the protestors, but the main people behind that is the government with some from the Fossil Fuel industry adding to it(which then started to fall off over the years, but there is still some though). I still stand by the MSRs(Specifically Thorium based, but Uranium based is, also, an option).
The MSRs are from the 1950's and 1960's, but the design is still better even from that far back. The versions we have now are only 10 years of research from the 2 main materials that were saved from being destroyed by the corrupt people in charge. The second reason is that MSRs are the closest form to get Nuclear Fusion ( http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/tew1/ ) while barely taking that much out of the economy with a lot of potential to add to the economy besides massive projects that require a lot of power(Mass drivers to send material to space so that rockets can focus more towards sending people to space until a large enough mass driver can be safely built).
Bill Gates is a piece of shit, but the Nuclear power company he's involved with has some good tech.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero
https://www.terrapower.com