If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(White House)   In the 1960's, a Thorium reactor ran safely for over 6,000 hours. The science was buried because it wasn't good at making nuclear weapons. Today, you can sign a We The People petition to give LFTR technology a second life   (wh.gov) divider line 152
    More: Cool, thorium reactor, nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, Oak Ridge  
•       •       •

6175 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Mar 2013 at 9:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-10 06:09:52 PM
Only 99,999 more signatures to go.  Also you should've made Obama bring back Ecto-Coolers.
 
2013-03-10 06:20:41 PM
i.imgur.com

Gotta hand it to subby, though.  Greenlit even though he's the only person who signed it.  Hell, there are petitions with 10,000 signatures asking Obama to release all the documents about the Reptilians and their control of the Bilderberg Society, and THAT doesn't get greenlit.
 
2013-03-10 06:27:06 PM
I can't bear to sign it and spoil this monument to ONE.
 
2013-03-10 06:39:03 PM
Sign it, but don't tell anyone else about it. So we know every signature came from Fark. Go!
 
2013-03-10 06:57:33 PM
You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.
 
2013-03-10 06:59:05 PM

GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.


I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.
 
2013-03-10 07:02:40 PM
That sounded interesting n' all, but besides Thorium being more abundant what advantages does it have? Do thorium reactors give off more energy, or do they have less radioactive byproducts?

I realise now I could just google that, but I've already written it now, so I might as well ask here.
 
2013-03-10 07:03:26 PM

TuteTibiImperes: GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.


I've lived near one of each in the last five years, and both of which have suffered significant accidents at one point in their lives.

When the coal plant farks up, I don't get irradiated.  For all of nuclear's supposed benefits, it remains an incredibly unsafe technology with predictable consequences that are never properly prepared for.
 
2013-03-10 07:05:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Thorium is the farking future, and the only reason we didn't peruse it was because it couldn't be used to make weapons grade material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
 
2013-03-10 07:07:26 PM

Slaxl: That sounded interesting n' all, but besides Thorium being more abundant what advantages does it have? Do thorium reactors give off more energy, or do they have less radioactive byproducts?

I realise now I could just google that, but I've already written it now, so I might as well ask here.


They have virtually no waste that cant be reused, and the half-life of its waste is 100 to 200 years. thats it.
 
2013-03-10 07:07:40 PM

GAT_00: TuteTibiImperes: GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

I've lived near one of each in the last five years, and both of which have suffered significant accidents at one point in their lives.

When the coal plant farks up, I don't get irradiated.  For all of nuclear's supposed benefits, it remains an incredibly unsafe technology with predictable consequences that are never properly prepared for.


True, but coal plants put out a constant stream of harmful waste, while nuclear plants are squeaky clean by comparison.  If we would reprocess our spent nuclear fuel we'd have far less nuclear waste to deal with, and nuclear would be overall even cleaner.

Yes, when things go catastrophically wrong it's worse with a nuclear plant, but the chances of that happening are very small.  I'm willing to take that risk in exchange for cleaner power and reduced reliance on fossil fuels.
 
2013-03-10 07:08:12 PM
The Best part of a Thorium reactor?>

If it breaks it just turns off safely.
 
2013-03-10 07:13:28 PM

GAT_00: TuteTibiImperes: GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

I've lived near one of each in the last five years, and both of which have suffered significant accidents at one point in their lives.

When the coal plant farks up, I don't get irradiated.  For all of nuclear's supposed benefits, it remains an incredibly unsafe technology with predictable consequences that are never properly prepared for.


So wait, you lived near both, and both had accidents, and when the coal plant farked up you didn't get irradiated, so are you saying you are irradiated?
 
2013-03-10 07:20:48 PM
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092  -
Rethinking Nuclear PowerAre modern nuclear reactors as bad for us as the environmentalists have painted them?

tl;dr PodCast Link - http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4092.mp3

Nuclear Power is very very safe, AND Thorium Nuclear is EVEN better.

10 mins of your time to educate yourself.
 
2013-03-10 07:22:44 PM

GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.


Yeah, people should never try to improve technology or make it safer. That is such a dumb idea! We should stick with the reactor designs we have now, which were though up in the 50s. And we certainly shouldn't think about technological improvements that could make current plants safer. That's ridiculous!
 
2013-03-10 07:27:05 PM

TuteTibiImperes: while nuclear plants are squeaky clean by comparison.


Only if you don't consider the waste, sure.

Slaxl: So wait, you lived near both, and both had accidents, and when the coal plant farked up you didn't get irradiated, so are you saying you are irradiated?


Browns Ferry nuclear plant came within 10 minutes or so of a meltdown due to a fire consuming all the coolant back in the 70s.

Raharu: If it breaks it just turns off safely.


Yeah, I don't trust that argument anymore after Fukushima when all the pro-nuke people said the exact same thing.  There is no such thing to an instant safe off for a nuke plant.

delsydsoftware: Yeah, people should never try to improve technology or make it safer. That is such a dumb idea! We should stick with the reactor designs we have now, which were though up in the 50s. And we certainly shouldn't think about technological improvements that could make current plants safer. That's ridiculous!


We could always try exploring technology that hasn't been fully explored yet and seems to have great potential, like solar.  But nah, we should return to the cast-offs of the 60s.  That's the way to the future.
 
2013-03-10 07:29:39 PM
No way, because nuclear is scary and you never know when there'll be a magnitude 9 quake in an area that's never seen one followed by a tsunami that goes 30 miles up the Hudson River and wreaks havoc ONLY at the nuclear power plant.

This is what environmentalists really believe. They brought drummers and origami so you know they're committed.
 
2013-03-10 07:34:45 PM

GAT_00: Raharu: If it breaks it just turns off safely.

Yeah, I don't trust that argument anymore after Fukushima when all the pro-nuke people said the exact same thing. There is no such thing to an instant safe off for a nuke plant.


I know 5 mins is asking a lot Gat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
 
2013-03-10 07:40:36 PM
If we could combine it with this petition, I'd be all for it.
 
2013-03-10 07:44:36 PM

Raharu: GAT_00: Raharu: If it breaks it just turns off safely.

Yeah, I don't trust that argument anymore after Fukushima when all the pro-nuke people said the exact same thing. There is no such thing to an instant safe off for a nuke plant.

I know 5 mins is asking a lot Gat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY


I've heard the "it's perfectly safe!" argument from nuke people so many times I don't even come close to believing it anymore.  Why believe an argument when the same people who have made the argument so many times before have straight out lied every time?  I heard perfectly safe so many times during Fukushima, and that these can't possibly melt down that I simply refuse to trust pro-nuke people.  The naive idea that an active power design such as a nuke plant can be perfectly fail safe is quite simply wrong.  There is no such thing.
 
2013-03-10 07:48:35 PM

GAT_00: Raharu: GAT_00: Raharu: If it breaks it just turns off safely.

Yeah, I don't trust that argument anymore after Fukushima when all the pro-nuke people said the exact same thing. There is no such thing to an instant safe off for a nuke plant.

I know 5 mins is asking a lot Gat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

I've heard the "it's perfectly safe!" argument from nuke people so many times I don't even come close to believing it anymore.  Why believe an argument when the same people who have made the argument so many times before have straight out lied every time?  I heard perfectly safe so many times during Fukushima, and that these can't possibly melt down that I simply refuse to trust pro-nuke people.  The naive idea that an active power design such as a nuke plant can be perfectly fail safe is quite simply wrong.  There is no such thing.


No one is claming 100% Absolute Safety but you are are walking down the road to LudditeVille....
 
2013-03-10 08:04:19 PM

Raharu: No one is claming 100% Absolute Safety but you are are walking down the road to LudditeVille....


Yes, not trusting nuke power is exactly the same thing as being a Luddite.
 
2013-03-10 08:07:40 PM

GAT_00: Raharu: No one is claming 100% Absolute Safety but you are are walking down the road to LudditeVille....

Yes, not trusting nuke power is exactly the same thing as being a Luddite.


Come on you two. You're both on my favs list. Now kiss and make up...
 
2013-03-10 08:12:36 PM
GAT_00:
We could always try exploring technology that hasn't been fully explored yet and seems to have great potential, like solar.  But nah, we should return to the cast-offs of the 60s.  That's the way to the future.

But, it hasn't been fully explored. There is so much power available in the atom that it is still worth exploring. Solar has been around longer than nuclear. Using your logic, why not abandon it? It's only 25% efficient. Why not improve both technologies, so we have multiple options?
 
2013-03-10 08:23:29 PM
This greenlight is brought to you by the good people of  Filbe Energy.
 
2013-03-10 08:24:42 PM
LFTR?

TLDR.
 
2013-03-10 08:34:17 PM

delsydsoftware: GAT_00:
We could always try exploring technology that hasn't been fully explored yet and seems to have great potential, like solar.  But nah, we should return to the cast-offs of the 60s.  That's the way to the future.

But, it hasn't been fully explored. There is so much power available in the atom that it is still worth exploring. Solar has been around longer than nuclear. Using your logic, why not abandon it? It's only 25% efficient. Why not improve both technologies, so we have multiple options?


Yes, but solar has shown marked increases in efficiency in recent years.  Efficiency is increasing, cost in production and cost per MW hour is decreasing, and solar is still relatively rare.  Whereas nuclear power is pretty much a stable technology.  This is a return to 50 year old technology as "new" whereas solar is improving every year.  And admittedly this kind of qualifies as "new" since there have not been LFTR reactors in operation for decades.

But really, this isn't moving forward.  This is going back onto a technology where we know we have relatively low amounts of available use.  Known unmined uranium totals are relatively small, possibly only 20 years of use based on known stocks and constant use.  I'm not aware of thorium mines outside of WoW, though honestly I don't know how it is mined, so I have nothing definitive on that.  But it seems like we're not moving forward here, we're abandoning innovation for old technology.
 
2013-03-10 08:46:30 PM
Remember, the reason our marketing people had to call it 4G is that calling it 3G LTE would have led to people seeing the words Long Term Evolution and resisting it.

I shiat you not. And yes, it is relevant. You can't teach the filthy masses anything.
 
2013-03-10 08:51:34 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

I've lived in the vicinity of Three Mile Island my entire life, even I agree with this sentiment.
 
2013-03-10 09:00:07 PM
GAT_00:
But really, this isn't moving forward.  This is going back onto a technology where we know we have relatively low amounts of available use.  Known unmined uranium totals are relatively small, possibly only 20 years of use based on known stocks and constant use.  I'm not aware of thorium mines outside of WoW, though honestly I don't know how it is mined, so I have nothing definitive on that.

Thorium is as common as lead
 
2013-03-10 09:03:41 PM
syrynxx: Only 99,999 more signatures to go.  Also you should've made Obama bring back Ecto-Coolers.

Why won't Obama bring back Ecto Cooler? Why does he hate America?
 
2013-03-10 09:07:28 PM
second life

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-10 09:18:19 PM
Thorium In it's natural  state does not have  a fusion reaction.  It requires X-rays to start and sustain the cascade.
 
2013-03-10 09:19:52 PM
Opps its not it's.
 
2013-03-10 09:22:22 PM

GAT_00: TuteTibiImperes: GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

I've lived near one of each in the last five years, and both of which have suffered significant accidents at one point in their lives.

When the coal plant farks up, I don't get irradiated.  For all of nuclear's supposed benefits, it remains an incredibly unsafe technology with predictable consequences that are never properly prepared for.


No, it's when coal plants are functioning properly that you get irradiated. Cool fact: The energy contained in the thorium released into the atmosphere (and left as fly ash) by a coal-fired power plant is greater than the energy content of the coal itself.

If you want to do the math, each ton of thorium has about as much energy as 3.5 million tons of coal. Thorium concentrations range between 1.3 and 3.2 parts per million. So you have between about 4.5 and 11 times as much energy in the thorium you are throwing out the smokestack, or keeping as fly ash sludge in a retaining pond, than you did in the coal you burned. That of course ignores the uranium, radium, radon, and polonium that is also contained in coal -- in addition to things that are poisonous and without a half-life, like lead and mercury -- that still remain after incineration.
 
2013-03-10 09:29:45 PM
To prove there's an xkcd for every possible argument:

imgs.xkcd.com
Though it was making a different point, the tangent is unmistakable.
 
2013-03-10 09:30:52 PM

sithon: It requires X-rays to start and sustain the cascade.


as long as it doesn't start a residence cascade.  that shiat's troublesome and has unforeseen consequences
 
2013-03-10 09:36:14 PM
In the 1960 is what, subby ?
 
2013-03-10 09:41:30 PM
First've all, thanks for the green-light.  It's probably my first.  And, yeah, the petition was started about ten minutes before I made the submission, so...Hey, you've gotta start somewhere, right?

Second, yeah, I don't work for Filbe.  I wish I did!  Then I'd actually have a pretty decent salary, maybe.  I'm just a guy who finds this to be an interesting and un-developed technology.  I have no way to be sure it's gonna work.  Nobody does.  But what I think we all know is that things can't keep going as they have.  Solar/wind/tidal combined lack the ability to handle the base-load of major cities, at least for the next half a century, while oil and coal are...Oil and coal; hydrocarbons are kinda 20th century!  Uranium/Plutonium reactors act under pressure, which makes them kind of a problem if you get tidal waves combined with earthquakes combined with dancing clowns, or whatever it takes to create a Fukushima-like thing.

Can the sci-fi designs they talk about really exist?  Can this Thorium promise be legitimate?  I don't have a clue, but I'd rather see the government actually do something than just keep saying, "Hey it looks nice but we've got this Uranium fuel cycle and well we don't wanna change it because that'd be haaarrrrdddddd!"  So why can't the government, or private investors, or whoever plunk down in a spot in the middle of the desert and try to tinker this thing up?  No idea.  Hence this silly little petition-of-eight (I think it's eight, might be more by now).  Big things start small.
 
2013-03-10 09:42:40 PM

thecpt: sithon: It requires X-rays to start and sustain the cascade.

as long as it doesn't start a residence cascade.  that shiat's troublesome and has unforeseen consequences


It's okay, I've got a crowbar.
 
2013-03-10 09:43:39 PM

GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.


But like technology and stuff, Luddites, 3D printers and stuff.
 
2013-03-10 09:44:22 PM

thecpt: residence cascade


?
Never heard of this phenomena.
 
2013-03-10 09:56:06 PM
For what it's worth, Bill Gates has gone on record in favour of Thorium-based nuclear power before.

believe the linked TED talk video includes this (I can't verify because no sound on my work PC):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

/not a rickroll
 
2013-03-10 10:01:46 PM

GAT_00: TuteTibiImperes: GAT_00: You're bragging about a reactor that ran for more than 250 days?  That's not noteworthy, that should be expected.

I think it's cute that people are still hyping "fail-safe" reactors at this point.  It's nice when people completely fail to learn from history.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

I've lived near one of each in the last five years, and both of which have suffered significant accidents at one point in their lives.

When the coal plant farks up, I don't get irradiated.  For all of nuclear's supposed benefits, it remains an incredibly unsafe technology with predictable consequences that are never properly prepared for.


No, you just get irradiated through normal burning of coal.
 
2013-03-10 10:02:10 PM
More nukes!
 
2013-03-10 10:02:16 PM
Should have claimed that Tesla invented it. You'd have your 10K petitions in five minutes.
 
2013-03-10 10:06:55 PM
D. D.Simi Valley, CA
March 10, 2013
Signature # 45
Good job, subby
 
2013-03-10 10:06:59 PM
Pebble bed nuclear reactors were also buried during the 60s, and have only recently gotten traction in China.  One power plant proved how safe it was by turn off the whole plant, and watched as the carbon graphite core naturally cooled without meltdown.

In fact, when we were thinking up of way to harness nuclear energy in a power plant, we picked the absolute worst method: water-cooled reactors.  Mainly because the Navy was backing the funding.
 
2013-03-10 10:07:42 PM

sithon: thecpt: residence cascade

?
Never heard of this phenomena.


I'd be more worried about an eminence front propagating through the material.

/It's a put-on.
 
2013-03-10 10:11:52 PM
I'm kinda thinking "thorium" is in the same category as "timecube", "chemtrails" and all that nonsense. Sorry, but I can't find any credible research that helps the case. I'd appreciate more info, I'm willing to learn and am not afraid to change my mind.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report