On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Bill Woody <[email protected]> wrote: > Y'all already know we can't continue down the current path. Why continue > with nuclear energy? It is like riding a tiger. Eventually things go wrong.
Did you not watch the video? It's vastly more safe than the current nuclear paradigm. Saying things eventually go wrong is like saying why bother with computers, things eventually go wrong. There is risk in anything. I'd like to see 1 gigawatt hydrogen plant be anywhere close to as safe as a LFTR plant. Actually, I'd settle for seeing a 1 gigawatt hydrogen plant in the first place. > Hydrogen is like vatamin c. It is easy to produce. Would it be easier to > improve the efficiency of photovoltaic cells or build nuclear power plants > to use Thorium? There is a hard limit to any kind of battery or cell. This hard limit is imposed by chemistry. To mutilate Clinton's '92 slogan: "It's the energy density, stupid." This is why for now oil has remained king. Oil is very energy dense. In fact more so than nearly anything else. > There will not be as much money in producing H. Everybody will have a little > H gernerator on top of the garage. Part of the H produced could with the > help of the photo cells liquify H and viola! Stored energy. As much as I'd love a future that is distributed that didn't require a grid, It seems about as realistic as teleportation. > > When the Sun feeds your hot water heater and your furnace, burning fossil > fuels for electricity will go out of style. I'd like to see this on a large scale. > > Oh. My favorite part. Because liquid H in a fuel tank is more a prescription > for disaster than gasoline, I see huge improvements in the human gene pool. > What's not to like? Everything. Andrew McElroy > > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM, andrew mcelroy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yeah, >> >> This is way off topic, but a few months back I was speaking with >> someone who was into green technologies. >> >> I never did quiet catch his name, but he seemed puzzled why I was big >> on promoting Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors as >> the future of nuclear. >> >> Here is a IEEE spectrum article (the links the article has as >> resources are even better) which make the case better than I could. >> I am not a nuclear physicist nor engineer. The people cited in this >> IEEE article are. >> >> >> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future >> >> This video is specifically useful in explaining the LFTR position: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk >> >> I'll spare you the election literature that I have had up for sometime >> for a particular candidate in regards to this technology. >> >> Respectfully, >> Andrew McElroy >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "NLUG" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "NLUG" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
