Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 4/1/2012 9:46:22 AM EDT
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:49:40 AM EDT
[#1]



Quoted:


Video Link



K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


because politicians are assholes



 
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:50:44 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


Government & Greenies hate nukes.

India & China are gearing up to build many of them.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:54:35 AM EDT
[#3]
This:
Quoted:

Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?

because politicians are assholes
 



And this:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


Government & Greenies hate nukes.

India & China are gearing up to build many of them.


Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:55:03 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
This:
Quoted:

Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?

because politicians are assholes
 



And this:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


Government & Greenies hate nukes.

India & China are gearing up to build many of them.




yep
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:55:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


Government & Greenies hate nukes.

India & China are gearing up to build many of them.


India and China are going to build this particular type of reactor?
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:55:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Very cool video , thanks for that
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 9:57:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Not gonna happen with the flat earth no growth Luddite scumbags in charge of the government now.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:01:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


Why are we duping this twice in a week?


http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1305889_The_Liquid_Floride_Thorium_Reactor__in_5_minutes__Video_.html
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:01:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Dupe....



ZA
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:01:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Too much money stands to be made from mining and selling uranium.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:02:19 AM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:04:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Something tells me we are only getting one side of the story in that video.


Not really , it's pretty straightforward. Many countries are looking at doing this, and MOST reactors in the US can also burn thorium as well as uranium.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:04:44 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


Government & Greenies hate nukes.

India & China are gearing up to build many of them.


India and China are going to build this particular type of reactor?


Not anytime soon, China has an R&D program, so does Japan. They are both 20 years from producing a full size reactor. The Aussies/Czech's are starting construction on a small prototype this year. Flibe energy (the guy in the video) plans on having a prototype running in the next 5 years.

Thorium simply hasn't been researched as much as more traditional reactors, yeah the US got into it in the 50-60s, but since then thorium has been ignored. No design= no reactors, politics played a part, but the real reason is lack of a commercial design.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:08:38 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Something tells me we are only getting one side of the story in that video.


Would you expect a five minute clip of Steve Jobs talking about the iPhone to tell you every bad thing about the iPhone?
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:12:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Video Link

K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?

because politicians are assholes
 


And the "greens" are dead set opposed to green power.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:15:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Something tells me we are only getting one side of the story in that video.


Not really... Its pretty apparent that traditional nuclear reactors are wasteful and aged in the input vs output dept as well as the risk of a partial and full meltdowns.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:19:40 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Not gonna happen with the flat earth no growth Luddite scumbags in charge of the government now.


1.  Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.
2.  Wouldn't mateer if the GOP held both houses and the presidency, the potential 20 years of court litegation in every state you attempt to build will dissuade proponents......back to No. 1 above
3.  Fusion would be cleaner, the moon is loaded with He3.

Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:19:54 AM EDT
[#18]
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:20:24 AM EDT
[#19]



Quoted:



Quoted:

This:


Quoted:




Quoted:

Video Link



K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?


because politicians are assholes

 






And this:


Quoted:


Quoted:

Video Link



K, so if it's so awesome, why aren't they building them?




Government & Greenies hate nukes.



India & China are gearing up to build many of them.








yep



This, +1, etc.



 
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:23:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Im sold.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:24:43 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Something tells me we are only getting one side of the story in that video.


Not really... Its pretty apparent that traditional nuclear reactors are wasteful and aged in the input vs output dept as well as the risk of a partial and full meltdowns.


So there is zero downside to this style of reactor?

None. Nada? No waste and completely safe and we burn all the fuel and don't have water to worry about escaping?

Then we designed uranium and breeder reactors in conjunction with the military to produce materials for bombs? Why did we decide to use a harder to find and less desirable fuel source and why did everyone else in the world choose it too?



The answer to that question is found in the hour long video over Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

Much more detailed and in depth.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:25:01 AM EDT
[#22]
the reason we aren't building more nukes on the us:

democrats

fuck democrats
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:25:14 AM EDT
[#23]



Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:

Something tells me we are only getting one side of the story in that video.




Not really... Its pretty apparent that traditional nuclear reactors are wasteful and aged in the input vs output dept as well as the risk of a partial and full meltdowns.




So there is zero downside to this style of reactor?



None. Nada? No waste and completely safe and we burn all the fuel and don't have water to worry about escaping?



Then we designed uranium and breeder reactors in conjunction with the military to produce materials for bombs? Why did we decide to use a harder to find and less desirable fuel source and why did everyone else in the world choose it too?



krpind... you were in the thread with teh full 90 minute video that the 5 minutes is from..  i also know that the reasoning for why we dont have them was gone over as well.





 
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:26:17 AM EDT
[#24]
Lot of uninformed people in here. LFTRs are not made for two reasons:
1. You cannot produce any nuclear weapons from the reactor.
2. People get hysterical when even remotely mentioning nuclear power.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:26:48 AM EDT
[#25]
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:29:37 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not gonna happen with the flat earth no growth Luddite scumbags in charge of the government now.


1.  Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.
2.  Wouldn't mateer if the GOP held both houses and the presidency, the potential 20 years of court litegation in every state you attempt to build will dissuade proponents......back to No. 1 above
3.  Fusion would be cleaner, the moon is loaded with He3.



1. Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.  Entirely due to the 10,000,000% cost hike due to red tape.  (number inflated slightly, but not significantly)
2. The GOP isn't particularly pro-technology
3. Fusion has been 10-20 years out for more than 50 years now.  If we'd gotten serious about building nuke plants in the 60s and 70s like France did we might have fusion power, power would be way cheaper, nuke designs would be way safer, and the crappy old nuke plants that actually pose risk would have been decommed.  Instead we're running nuke plants from the 70s that were not great then, and suck ass now, despite the fact that there has been minimal R&D on new designs.  Thank the greens the nimby assholes for wetting their panties in ignorance, and the idiot politicians for sucking both groups off, to the detriment of every thinking person in the country.

Let me try to make an analogy.

Coal plants are biplanes.
Nuke plants are jets.
Hydro plants are dirigibles.
Solar/wind/wave plants are unicorn farts.

In 1960 a jet crashed.  The FAA's response was to demand that all jets carry enough armor on the entire fuselage to survive any possible disaster.  The FAA entirely ignored biplanes in this regulation.  The FAA's demands on jet safety continue to increase past current technology for 50 years, while continuing to ignore biplanes entirely, and giving huge taxpayer subsidies to unicorn farts.

Did I miss anything?
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:38:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not gonna happen with the flat earth no growth Luddite scumbags in charge of the government now.


1.  Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.
2.  Wouldn't mateer if the GOP held both houses and the presidency, the potential 20 years of court litegation in every state you attempt to build will dissuade proponents......back to No. 1 above
3.  Fusion would be cleaner, the moon is loaded with He3.



1. Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.  Entirely due to the 10,000,000% cost hike due to red tape.  (number inflated slightly, but not significantly)
2. The GOP isn't particularly pro-technology
3. Fusion has been 10-20 years out for more than 50 years now.  If we'd gotten serious about building nuke plants in the 60s and 70s like France did we might have fusion power, power would be way cheaper, nuke designs would be way safer, and the crappy old nuke plants that actually pose risk would have been decommed.  Instead we're running nuke plants from the 70s that were not great then, and suck ass now, despite the fact that there has been minimal R&D on new designs.  Thank the greens the nimby assholes for wetting their panties in ignorance, and the idiot politicians for sucking both groups off, to the detriment of every thinking person in the country.


1.  That is a large part of it but as I understand it Nuke power is only capitalized currently because the government is committed to re-imburse 100% investors in it if they burn them or shut them down.l

2.  McCain-ites will opose it as an opportunity

3.  What stops fusion is the source it is derived from, currently hydrogen, tritium, and deuterium IIRC, He3 is a better source.  Justification for moon missions.

Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:40:21 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not gonna happen with the flat earth no growth Luddite scumbags in charge of the government now.


1.  Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.
2.  Wouldn't mateer if the GOP held both houses and the presidency, the potential 20 years of court litegation in every state you attempt to build will dissuade proponents......back to No. 1 above
3.  Fusion would be cleaner, the moon is loaded with He3.



1. Nuclear power would not exist in this country without major subsidy.  Entirely due to the 10,000,000% cost hike due to red tape.  (number inflated slightly, but not significantly)
2. The GOP isn't particularly pro-technology
3. Fusion has been 10-20 years out for more than 50 years now.  If we'd gotten serious about building nuke plants in the 60s and 70s like France did we might have fusion power, power would be way cheaper, nuke designs would be way safer, and the crappy old nuke plants that actually pose risk would have been decommed.  Instead we're running nuke plants from the 70s that were not great then, and suck ass now, despite the fact that there has been minimal R&D on new designs.  Thank the greens the nimby assholes for wetting their panties in ignorance, and the idiot politicians for sucking both groups off, to the detriment of every thinking person in the country.


1.  That is a large part of it but as I understand it Nuke power is only capitalized currently because the government is committed to re-imburse 100% investors in it if they burn them or shut them down.l

2.  McCain-ites will opose it as an opportunity

3.  What stops fusion is the source it is derived from, currently hydrogen and deuterium IIRC, He3 is a better source.  Justification for moon missions.



3 is 100% the perfect opposing the best available.  YMMV
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:40:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Screw the dupes.  I had not seen it, not heard of it until now.  Word needs to spread.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:48:25 AM EDT
[#30]
Thorium cannot produce a runaway nuclear reaction like U-235 can (there is no critical mass), so there would be no danger of a meltdown or nuclear explosion, correct?
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:51:48 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Thorium cannot produce a runaway nuclear reaction like U-235 can (there is no critical mass), so there would be no danger of a meltdown or nuclear explosion, correct?


Post-80s? design U-235 reactors cannot meltdown.  I'm not sure any US design could go critical.  The mainstream coverage of nuclear plants is nearly as biased as the coverage of guns.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 10:57:14 AM EDT
[#32]
From the video (the long one)  the problems with an MSRs and LFTRs are:  Not good at producing stuff that goes boom.  Hence the rejection of it in the 50s and 60s during

the Cold War.  Corrosion.  Flouride or something in the fuel mix likes everything to be like it so it corrodes it.  The solution was Hastalloy (?), a metal developed specifically

for this environment.  Entrenched interests.  We know the BWR.  We've been using it for years.  LFTRs are new.  That's bad.  Also GE or whoever doesn't get to sell fuel

rods made from a material as rare as platinum.  I'm not a physicist or engineer so I can't speak to the validity of that at all.  But I say bring on the nukes.  Farley has been

chugging along for years down here.
Link Posted: 4/1/2012 11:09:06 AM EDT
[#33]
If you've got half an hour, here's why it didn't happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bbyr7jZOllI
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top