RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
Chris, the why not gang is probably correct, but I do not see most people as rational actors in this. They know what they feel and want, and fission is not it. Again, not rational reasons. Perhaps some people, but many others are opposed to nuclear power -- as it has been realized -- for very sound technical reasons. There is a wide variety of reasons, and they cannot all be lumped under the rubric of irrational opposition as you seem to imply. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, May 20, 2014 1:24 am Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Atthe risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin thisis a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. Itaddresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of which have to do with administrativeand poltical mistakes or which apply to thorium power ideas quitedifferent from the liquid salt design demonstrated at Oak Ridge. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A thorium, liquid salt reactor does make Pu239, and it gets a lot of it's energy from Pu239 fission. The difference is that it essentially burns the plutonium as fast at it's made. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world’s first full-scale atomic electric power plant, a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't 2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) U233 isn't likely to proliferate because it is always mixed with U232 (which it can produce by decay) and U232, through its decay chain, produces intense gamma radiation. So it can only be handled and processed remotely. Even suicide bombers wouldn't last long enough to transport it very far. And the U232 makes it difficult to turn the U233 into a bomb because it's presence tends to make the bomb low yield. When making a U233 bomb they try to refine out all the U232. Sure, and granted. U233 is on most scores a poor bomb material. However, it can and in fact has been made into a bomb, and that is concerning to me. Sure it is a deadly material to handle and anyone handling it would surely be dead. Fanatics are willing to make that sacrifice of their CFUs (i.e. cannon fodder units). Once assembled a bomb can be encased in lead, making a lot easier to handle. The technical ease, in terms of not having to master the difficult challenge of building a carefully vectored implosion device, is a considerable factor that cannot be ignored. So what if it low yield… sure from a military standpoint, but I shudder to imagine the effects of just one such low yield high fallout bomb on the major metro area of your choice. Does it matter, in this scenario, if superior bomb materials exist and which are used by all weapons states (declared and undeclared)? Furthermore the very deadliness of U232, which you correctly say would make handling the U233 very difficult is a reason in itself to want to ensure that there exist the highest levels of safeguards in order to keep these deadly (potentially weaponizable) materials accounted for and secured. For this reason I am opposed to the proposals for widely scattered small scale nuclear batteries (of whatever kind) – it makes it impossible to keep out of nefarious hands. Chris Thanks, but it's Chris which has written your quote... but what you say is what I remembered reading about U233 difficult extraction. Quentin Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:13 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/20/2014 11:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) U233 isn't likely to proliferate because it is always mixed with U232 (which it can produce by decay) and U232, through its decay chain, produces intense gamma radiation. So it can only be handled and processed remotely. Even suicide bombers wouldn't last long enough to transport it very far. And the U232 makes it difficult to turn the U233 into a bomb because it's presence tends to make the bomb low yield. When making a U233 bomb they try to refine out all the U232. Thanks, but it's Chris which has written your quote... but what you say is what I remembered reading about U233 difficult extraction. OOps. My apologies. The U233 can be separated from the Th232 by chemical means, which is relatively easy. But the U233 comes out contaminated by so much U232 that it won't make a bomb and refining the U233 is hard both because it's an isotope separation problem and also because the U232 is an intense gamma ray source. Actually my worry about terrorists with nuclear material is that they would make a dirty bomb - which doesn't need any refinement or special equipment. In fact they could make a dirty bomb from medical radiological materials. Mishandling those is the major cause of radiation induced accidental deaths - not power plants. A dirty bomb is definitely more of a realizable weapon and concerns me as well. The auditing/accounting of and control over nuclear materials needs to remain very high – IMO. And so the idea of widely dispersed small scale nuclear power facilities (as is envisioned by some pro-nuclear folks) seems to me to be patently insane – from this perspective. As for deaths attributable to nuclear power; it depends who you ask, and who’s mortuary statistics you trust. How many cancer deaths can be attributed to the long term effects of the Chernobyl disaster for example. This is a much debated subject and the numbers vary widely with numbers ranging from the 4000 deaths attributed to Chernobyl, by the WHO to much higher figures of 200,000 and more given by the Russian Academy of Sciences (with even higher figures from the Ukrainian and Belarussian scientific academies) Chris Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 OK, point by point: the United States has tried to develop thorium as an energy source for some 50 years They sure didn't try very hard! The United States did stick some Thorium into conventional reactors that were never designed for it and not surprisingly it didn't work out all that well. And there were a few very small molten salt thorium reactors made by Alvin Weinberg but they were no help in developing weapons because they produced no Plutonium so they were shut down long ago. Ironically Weinberg is the man who also invented the pressurized light water reactor we use today and he's the guy who encouraged Admiral Rickover to put them in submarines, but when they just scaled up his submarine design for huge commercial power plants he thought that was a dangerous move and believed his new idea, liquid Thorium salts, was a much better way to go. He was told that if he had doubts about his original invention it was time for him to get out of the nuclear business and he was fired. Today the amount of money spent on molten salt thorium reactors is the same as it's been for decades, zero. I think a larger number might be appropriate. The first track was development of plutonium-fueled “breeder” reactors, which [blah blah] By there very nature all Uranium reactors produce Plutonium, and Plutonium breeders do so with gusto. But Plutonium has nothing to do with Thorium reactors, the amount of Plutonium they make is so small it's almost unmeasurable. The second track—now largely forgotten—was based on thorium-fueled reactors. That's the problem, it's been largely forgotten for nearly half a century because Uranium reactors work well enough in submarines and Thorium reactors produce no Plutonium; that was considered a huge disadvantage in the 1950s and 60s but less so today. By 1977, however, the government abandoned pursuit of the thorium fuel cycle in favor of plutonium-fueled breeders True, and I think that was a dumb move because Plutonium breeders scare the hell out of me. A breeder has a much higher energy density than a regular reactor and it uses faster neutrons so you have less time to react if something goes wrong, that means it's inherently more dangerous. A conventional reactor uses Uranium as fuel in which the U235 has been enriched from the naturally occurring .7% concentration to about 4%, you need about 85% to make a bomb. A breeder uses weapons grade plutonium as a fuel, and lots of it. Also, a conventional reactor uses water as a coolant and to slow down the neutrons, a breeder uses molten sodium that burns in the air and explodes in the presents of water. All Uranium reactors (but not Thorium reactors) produce plutonium, a big power plant reactor will invariably produce many tons of it in its lifetime. A breeder reactor is designed to maximize the production of plutonium but I don't think that's a very good idea. There is already so much of it in existence, thousands of tons, that it's very hard to keep track of it all. You only need slightly over 9 pounds to make a crude nuclear bomb, less if you're clever. The first commercial nuclear plant to use thorium was Indian Point Unit I, a pressurized water reactor near New York City that began operation in 1962. Attempts to recover uranium 233 from its irradiated thorium fuel were described, however, as a “financial disaster.” So 1962 technology wasn't up for the job, is 2014 technology good enough? It certainly would be if a tenth as much money had been spent on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor design as had been spent on Uranium reactor design. The US Energy Department appears to have lost track of 96 kilograms of uranium 233, a fissile material made from thorium that can be fashioned into a bomb, I can't get too excited about that, the USA Energy Department has also lost track of 5900 pounds of weapons grade U235 and Plutonium that it had shipped outside the USA, and both are far easier to make a bomb out of than U233. And besides, in a modern Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) the U233 is completely burned up inside the reactor so there is nothing to steal, unlike existing reactors where used fuel rods are shipped to reprocessing plants to extract the Plutonium. With a LFTR it never leaves the reactor building. And a regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of them, so it needs all that U233 just to keep the chain reaction going, if you try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft obvious. Uranium 233 compares favorably to plutonium in terms of weaponization; Baloney. No nation has
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:52 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 OK, point by point: the United States has tried to develop thorium as an energy source for some 50 years They sure didn't try very hard! The United States did stick some Thorium into conventional reactors that were never designed for it and not surprisingly it didn't work out all that well. And there were a few very small molten salt thorium reactors made by Alvin Weinberg but they were no help in developing weapons because they produced no Plutonium so they were shut down long ago. Ironically Weinberg is the man who also invented the pressurized light water reactor we use today and he's the guy who encouraged Admiral Rickover to put them in submarines, but when they just scaled up his submarine design for huge commercial power plants he thought that was a dangerous move and believed his new idea, liquid Thorium salts, was a much better way to go. He was told that if he had doubts about his original invention it was time for him to get out of the nuclear business and he was fired. From wiki-Alvin Weinberg: ORNL then shifted its focus to a civilian version of the meltdown-proof Molten Salt Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Salt_Reactor (MSR) away from the military's daft[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-7 idea of nuclear-powered aircraft. The Molten-Salt Reactor Experimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment (MSRE) set a record for continuous operation and was the first to use uranium-233http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233 as fuel. It also used plutonium-239http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 and the standard, naturally-occurring uranium-235http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235. The MSR was known as the chemist's reactor because it was proposed mainly by chemists (ORNL's Ray Briant and Ed Bettis (an engineer) and NEPA's Vince Calkins)[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-8 and because it used a chemical solution of melted saltshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(chemistry) containing the actinides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinides (uraniumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium , thorium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium, and/or plutoniumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium) in a carrier salt, most often composed of berylliumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium (BeF2) and lithium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium (LiF – NOTE the Lithium is isotopically enriched in Lithium-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-7 to prevent excessive neutron capture or tritium production) - FLiBehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe .[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-9 The MSR also affords the opportunity to change the chemistry of the molten salt while the reactor was operating to remove fission products (the 'nuclear ashes') and add new fuel or change the fuel, all of which is called online processing. Today the amount of money spent on molten salt thorium reactors is the same as it's been for decades, zero. I think a larger number might be appropriate. The first track was development of plutonium-fueled “breeder” reactors, which [blah blah] By there very nature all Uranium reactors produce Plutonium, and Plutonium breeders do so with gusto. But Plutonium has nothing to do with Thorium reactors, the amount of Plutonium they make is so small it's almost unmeasurable. The second track—now largely forgotten—was based on thorium-fueled reactors. That's the problem, it's been largely forgotten for nearly half a century because Uranium reactors work well enough in submarines and Thorium reactors produce no Plutonium; that was considered a huge disadvantage in the 1950s and 60s but less so today. By 1977, however, the government abandoned pursuit of the thorium fuel cycle in favor of plutonium-fueled breeders True, and I think that was a dumb move because Plutonium breeders scare the hell out of me. A breeder has a much higher energy density than a regular reactor and it uses faster neutrons so you have less time to react if something goes wrong, that means it's inherently more dangerous. A conventional reactor uses Uranium as fuel in which the U235 has been enriched from the naturally occurring .7% concentration to about 4%, you need about 85% to make a bomb. A breeder uses weapons grade plutonium as a fuel, and lots of it. Also, a conventional reactor uses water as a coolant and to slow down the neutrons, a breeder uses molten sodium that burns in the air and explodes in the presents of water
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:28 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: What about the waste tails he alludes to. A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor simply because Thorium has a atomic number of only 90 but with Uranium it's 92 and with Plutonium it's 94, and most of the really bad radioactive isotopes have a high atomic number so less of it is produced if you start from a lower number. And most of the waste that a LFTR does produce is soon gone, after about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; in a conventional reactor would take 100,000 years for the gunk it makes to be safe. There are only 3 sources that could supply our civilization with energy for a billion years, fusion, solar and Thorium. Nobody knows how to make a fusion reactor and solar energy is too dilute and unreliable to be practical in most situations, but Thorium energy is not dilute and we pretty much know how to do it now. I really think we should look into it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
Chris, the why not gang is probably correct, but I do not see most people as rational actors in this. They know what they feel and want, and fission is not it. Again, not rational reasons. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, May 20, 2014 1:24 am Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Atthe risk of re-starting the Thorium wars lt;gringt; thisis a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. Itaddresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of which have to do with administrativeand poltical mistakes or which apply to thorium power ideas quitedifferent from the liquid salt design demonstrated at Oak Ridge. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
What about the waste tails he alludes to. I had not known that they had actually constructed and tested U233 bombs - had always thought it was a hypothetical problem rather than an actual and supposedly - according to this article - a tested device. His point also that U233 does not need an implosion makes it a technically much simpler conventional bomb to build; no need for precisely timed shaped charges etc. These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) Furthermore based on the track records of the US, the former USSR, and the other declared and undeclared nuclear powers I am not nearly as sanguine as some about the actual outcomes for the long term sequestration of both the medium term and long term waste products. It is a real and valid concern that any proponent of such a system needs to be able to have a story for that is not based upon hypotheticals and fuzzy math (and dumping the problem onto the commons). Can it be shown that LFTR facilities could be largely self-contained well secured units, including within their compounds all the necessary re-processing support facilities etc. Can an LFTR system burn through the vast majority of the by-products until transmuted into stable end chain element isotopes. Thorium itself is pretty easy to come by and is not especially dangerous - chemically. Seems about like most heavy metals and so could pretty easily be mined, refined and transported. No issues with it until it becomes mixed in with U233. LFTR does seem to present a pretty safe operational design, from those I have seen, LFTR reactors can have simple passive failsafe designs that can make the reactor go into cold shutdown if something goes terribly wrong. All the operators could abandon their post and walk away and it would still fail safely. As simple as having a lower melting point plug on the reactor vessel bottom that will fail allowing the hot molten thorium/U233/flouride salt to flow out into a dispersed catchment chamber designed to hold it until it cools. I support looking into it; into a program to build a full scale pilot system - hopefully a self-enclosed loop system that slowly breeds its way through the feedstock. I have even dreamed of it in a science fiction context as the power source for distant outposts too far out for solar power; just saying I am even somewhat of an LFTR fan J But on the other hand to pretend that these criticisms are not valid is not going to make them go away. U233 is bomb grade stuff (admittedly very hard to handle, but dictators, criminal syndicates and fanatics care little about human life. The loss of a few CFUs or cannon fodder units to purify or transport the material is a loss I am certain they are willing to pay.) Though it is deadly to handle (for the handlers at least) it is also technically far easier to purify out from the thorium fluoride salt mix in which it is contained and once purified to a metal, much less difficult to turn into an effective device than the prevailing enriched uranium or plutonium devices. That qualifies as a pretty serious problem to me. Again not trying to be argumentative or start a flame war. As I said I am interested in LFTR, more so than most people are. My suggestion would be to go for a template of large scale sprawling self-contained facilities, with multiple passive failsafe design LFTR reactors coupled with the re-processing and other necessary support and short term waste sequestration facilities. Keeping the number of facilities that would need to be kept secured relatively small in number. A highly redundant and carefully audited accounting of all U233 throughout the chain should be maintained so that these stocks are safeguarded and the U233 never leaves these facilities. That would be my first proposal right off the bat. How do you think the issues raised can be addressed? Or if you feel these are not valid issues then could you explain your reasoning for feeling this way. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:25 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of which have to do with administrative and poltical mistakes or which apply to thorium power ideas quite different from the liquid salt design
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: What about the waste tails he alludes to. I had not known that they had actually constructed and tested U233 bombs – had always thought it was a hypothetical problem rather than an actual and supposedly – according to this article – a tested device. His point also that U233 does not need an implosion makes it a technically much simpler conventional bomb to build; no need for precisely timed shaped charges etc. These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) Why does your article say that Attempts to recover uranium 233 from its irradiated thorium fuel were described, however, as a “financial disaster.” if it is that easy ? Regards, Quentin Furthermore based on the track records of the US, the former USSR, and the other declared and undeclared nuclear powers I am not nearly as sanguine as some about the actual outcomes for the long term sequestration of both the medium term and long term waste products. It is a real and valid concern that any proponent of such a system needs to be able to have a story for that is not based upon hypotheticals and fuzzy math (and dumping the problem onto the commons). Can it be shown that LFTR facilities could be largely self-contained well secured units, including within their compounds all the necessary re-processing support facilities etc. Can an LFTR system burn through the vast majority of the by-products until transmuted into stable end chain element isotopes. Thorium itself is pretty easy to come by and is not especially dangerous – chemically. Seems about like most heavy metals and so could pretty easily be mined, refined and transported. No issues with it until it becomes mixed in with U233. LFTR does seem to present a pretty safe operational design, from those I have seen, LFTR reactors can have simple passive failsafe designs that can make the reactor go into cold shutdown if something goes terribly wrong. All the operators could abandon their post and walk away and it would still fail safely. As simple as having a lower melting point plug on the reactor vessel bottom that will fail allowing the hot molten thorium/U233/flouride salt to flow out into a dispersed catchment chamber designed to hold it until it cools. I support looking into it; into a program to build a full scale pilot system – hopefully a self-enclosed loop system that slowly breeds its way through the feedstock. I have even dreamed of it in a science fiction context as the power source for distant outposts too far out for solar power; just saying I am even somewhat of an LFTR fan J But on the other hand to pretend that these criticisms are not valid is not going to make them go away. U233 is bomb grade stuff (admittedly very hard to handle, but dictators, criminal syndicates and fanatics care little about human life. The loss of a few CFUs or cannon fodder units to purify or transport the material is a loss I am certain they are willing to pay.) Though it is deadly to handle (for the handlers at least) it is also technically far easier to purify out from the thorium fluoride salt mix in which it is contained and once purified to a metal, much less difficult to turn into an effective device than the prevailing enriched uranium or plutonium devices. That qualifies as a pretty serious problem to me. Again not trying to be argumentative or start a flame war. As I said I am interested in LFTR, more so than most people are. My suggestion would be to go for a template of large scale sprawling self-contained facilities, with multiple passive failsafe design LFTR reactors coupled with the re-processing and other necessary support and short term waste sequestration facilities. Keeping the number of facilities that would need to be kept secured relatively small in number. A highly redundant and carefully audited accounting of all U233 throughout the chain should be maintained so that these stocks are safeguarded and the U233 never leaves these facilities. That would be my first proposal right off the bat. How do you think the issues raised can be addressed? Or if you feel these are not valid issues then could you explain your reasoning for feeling this way. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 10:25 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote
RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't 2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: What about the waste tails he alludes to. I had not known that they had actually constructed and tested U233 bombs – had always thought it was a hypothetical problem rather than an actual and supposedly – according to this article – a tested device. His point also that U233 does not need an implosion makes it a technically much simpler conventional bomb to build; no need for precisely timed shaped charges etc. These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) Why does your article say that Attempts to recover uranium 233 from its irradiated thorium fuel were described, however, as a “financial disaster.” if it is that easy ? Not my article – you would need to ask the author. I have read elsewhere – and it made sense to me – that because the U233 and the Thorium are different elements it is possible to separate them using chemical means as opposed to the very expensive (also in terms of energy expended) separation by gas centrifuge that is necessary for separating the U235 out from the U238. Chris Regards, Quentin Furthermore based on the track records of the US, the former USSR, and the other declared and undeclared nuclear powers I am not nearly as sanguine as some about the actual outcomes for the long term sequestration of both the medium term and long term waste products. It is a real and valid concern that any proponent of such a system needs to be able to have a story for that is not based upon hypotheticals and fuzzy math (and dumping the problem onto the commons). Can it be shown that LFTR facilities could be largely self-contained well secured units, including within their compounds all the necessary re-processing support facilities etc. Can an LFTR system burn through the vast majority of the by-products until transmuted into stable end chain element isotopes. Thorium itself is pretty easy to come by and is not especially dangerous – chemically. Seems about like most heavy metals and so could pretty easily be mined, refined and transported. No issues with it until it becomes mixed in with U233. LFTR does seem to present a pretty safe operational design, from those I have seen, LFTR reactors can have simple passive failsafe designs that can make the reactor go into cold shutdown if something goes terribly wrong. All the operators could abandon their post and walk away and it would still fail safely. As simple as having a lower melting point plug on the reactor vessel bottom that will fail allowing the hot molten thorium/U233/flouride salt to flow out into a dispersed catchment chamber designed to hold it until it cools. I support looking into it; into a program to build a full scale pilot system – hopefully a self-enclosed loop system that slowly breeds its way through the feedstock. I have even dreamed of it in a science fiction context as the power source for distant outposts too far out for solar power; just saying I am even somewhat of an LFTR fan J But on the other hand to pretend that these criticisms are not valid is not going to make them go away. U233 is bomb grade stuff (admittedly very hard to handle, but dictators, criminal syndicates and fanatics care little about human life. The loss of a few CFUs or cannon fodder units to purify or transport the material is a loss I am certain they are willing to pay.) Though it is deadly to handle (for the handlers at least) it is also technically far easier to purify out from the thorium fluoride salt mix in which it is contained and once purified to a metal, much less difficult to turn into an effective device than the prevailing enriched uranium or plutonium devices. That qualifies as a pretty serious problem to me. Again not trying to be argumentative or start a flame war. As I said I am interested in LFTR, more so than most people are. My suggestion would be to go for a template of large scale sprawling self-contained facilities, with multiple passive failsafe design LFTR reactors coupled with the re-processing and other necessary support and short term waste sequestration facilities. Keeping the number of facilities that would need to be kept secured relatively small in number. A highly redundant and carefully audited accounting of all U233 throughout the chain should
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
2014-05-20 17:55 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Quentin Anciaux *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't 2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: What about the waste tails he alludes to. I had not known that they had actually constructed and tested U233 bombs – had always thought it was a hypothetical problem rather than an actual and supposedly – according to this article – a tested device. His point also that U233 does not need an implosion makes it a technically much simpler conventional bomb to build; no need for precisely timed shaped charges etc. These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) Why does your article say that Attempts to recover uranium 233 from its irradiated thorium fuel were described, however, as a “financial disaster.” if it is that easy ? Not my article – I know that you're not the author of the article and that wasn't implied in the your article. you would need to ask the author. I have read elsewhere – and it made sense to me – that because the U233 and the Thorium are different elements it is possible to separate them using chemical means Well, I've always read that it was very difficult to separate it from the thorium salt used in the reactor. I found this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644 but is this preparation of the thorium fuel the way it would be used in a thorium reactor ? If yes, then sure it's bad... but it would be worse to have an energy crisis. Quentin as opposed to the very expensive (also in terms of energy expended) separation by gas centrifuge that is necessary for separating the U235 out from the U238. Chris Regards, Quentin Furthermore based on the track records of the US, the former USSR, and the other declared and undeclared nuclear powers I am not nearly as sanguine as some about the actual outcomes for the long term sequestration of both the medium term and long term waste products. It is a real and valid concern that any proponent of such a system needs to be able to have a story for that is not based upon hypotheticals and fuzzy math (and dumping the problem onto the commons). Can it be shown that LFTR facilities could be largely self-contained well secured units, including within their compounds all the necessary re-processing support facilities etc. Can an LFTR system burn through the vast majority of the by-products until transmuted into stable end chain element isotopes. Thorium itself is pretty easy to come by and is not especially dangerous – chemically. Seems about like most heavy metals and so could pretty easily be mined, refined and transported. No issues with it until it becomes mixed in with U233. LFTR does seem to present a pretty safe operational design, from those I have seen, LFTR reactors can have simple passive failsafe designs that can make the reactor go into cold shutdown if something goes terribly wrong. All the operators could abandon their post and walk away and it would still fail safely. As simple as having a lower melting point plug on the reactor vessel bottom that will fail allowing the hot molten thorium/U233/flouride salt to flow out into a dispersed catchment chamber designed to hold it until it cools. I support looking into it; into a program to build a full scale pilot system – hopefully a self-enclosed loop system that slowly breeds its way through the feedstock. I have even dreamed of it in a science fiction context as the power source for distant outposts too far out for solar power; just saying I am even somewhat of an LFTR fan J But on the other hand to pretend that these criticisms are not valid is not going to make them go away. U233 is bomb grade stuff (admittedly very hard to handle, but dictators, criminal syndicates and fanatics care little about human life. The loss of a few CFUs or cannon fodder units to purify or transport the material is a loss I am certain they are willing to pay.) Though it is deadly to handle (for the handlers at least) it is also technically far easier to purify out from the thorium fluoride salt mix in which it is contained and once purified to a metal, much less difficult to turn into an effective device than the prevailing enriched uranium
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) U233 isn't likely to proliferate because it is always mixed with U232 (which it can produce by decay) and U232, through its decay chain, produces intense gamma radiation. So it can only be handled and processed remotely. Even suicide bombers wouldn't last long enough to transport it very far. And the U232 makes it difficult to turn the U233 into a bomb because it's presence tends to make the bomb low yield. When making a U233 bomb they try to refine out all the U232. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) U233 isn't likely to proliferate because it is always mixed with U232 (which it can produce by decay) and U232, through its decay chain, produces intense gamma radiation. So it can only be handled and processed remotely. Even suicide bombers wouldn't last long enough to transport it very far. And the U232 makes it difficult to turn the U233 into a bomb because it's presence tends to make the bomb low yield. When making a U233 bomb they try to refine out all the U232. Thanks, but it's Chris which has written your quote... but what you say is what I remembered reading about U233 difficult extraction. Quentin Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
Chris, Brent and other Th-savants: (I am not one) Whatever radiates is suspect to me. Humans' world is vulnerable. Bombs? We must WANT peace very much (si vis pacem, para bellum). Suppose: someone discovers a 'good'way to make a Th-bomb (a different route from the old one) - on historical examples let us (NOT even!) imagine all those miseries what the classical (U232?) development and application caused SO FAR. This is the real 'playing with fire'. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:24 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of which have to do with administrative and poltical mistakes or which apply to thorium power ideas quite different from the liquid salt design demonstrated at Oak Ridge. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On 5/20/2014 11:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net: On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) U233 isn't likely to proliferate because it is always mixed with U232 (which it can produce by decay) and U232, through its decay chain, produces intense gamma radiation. So it can only be handled and processed remotely. Even suicide bombers wouldn't last long enough to transport it very far. And the U232 makes it difficult to turn the U233 into a bomb because it's presence tends to make the bomb low yield. When making a U233 bomb they try to refine out all the U232. Thanks, but it's Chris which has written your quote... but what you say is what I remembered reading about U233 difficult extraction. OOps. My apologies. The U233 can be separated from the Th232 by chemical means, which is relatively easy. But the U233 comes out contaminated by so much U232 that it won't make a bomb and refining the U233 is hard both because it's an isotope separation problem and also because the U232 is an intense gamma ray source. Actually my worry about terrorists with nuclear material is that they would make a dirty bomb - which doesn't need any refinement or special equipment. In fact they could make a dirty bomb from medical radiological materials. Mishandling those is the major cause of radiation induced accidental deaths - not power plants. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't
On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars grin this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of which have to do with administrative and poltical mistakes or which apply to thorium power ideas quite different from the liquid salt design demonstrated at Oak Ridge. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: No Wonder philosophers suck!
On 1/30/2013 2:38 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A great post Stephen thanks Well, in fact what the post says is that the ones that sucks are the logical positivists (and their dwarfs, the scientists), who took over the power in Modernland. I take this phrase, which IMHO describes very well what is inside of what In fact, the opposite is true: science is a particular research program within philosophy — what was formerly called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy, or what we today would call methodological naturalism 2013/1/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! Thanks Alberto, Had I known that this was the current state of philosophy, I may not have been so motivated to study it. But here I am now, trying to rehabilitate it... It is a Sisyphean task, but I will try to make a small dent. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: No Wonder philosophers suck!
Hi Stephen P. King Even Wittgenstein, who invented logical positivism, soon abandoned it and spent the rest of his life showing why it doesn't work. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 00:32:44 Subject: No Wonder philosophers suck! http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: No Wonder philosophers suck!
On 30 Jan 2013, at 08:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A great post Stephen thanks Well, in fact what the post says is that the ones that sucks are the logical positivists (and their dwarfs, the scientists), who took over the power in Modernland. I take this phrase, which IMHO describes very well what is inside of what In fact, the opposite is true: science is a particular research program within philosophy — what was formerly called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy, or what we today would call methodological naturalism Comp has only a problem with metaphysical naturalism, when dogmatic or granted. Bruno 2013/1/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: No Wonder philosophers suck!
A great post Stephen thanks Well, in fact what the post says is that the ones that sucks are the logical positivists (and their dwarfs, the scientists), who took over the power in Modernland. I take this phrase, which IMHO describes very well what is inside of what In fact, the opposite is true: science is a particular research program within philosophy — what was formerly called natural philosophy or experimental philosophy, or what we today would call methodological naturalism 2013/1/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net http://geopolicraticus.tumblr.**com/post/34741184431/post-** positivist-thoughthttp://geopolicraticus.tumblr.com/post/34741184431/post-positivist-thought What a mess! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Wonder
Hi meekerdb A computer can not experience the wonder produced by the night sky, for example. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 14:08:42 Subject: Re: On the necessity of monads for perception On 8/14/2012 10:22 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Jason Resch ? No, the artificial man does not have a conscious self (subjectivity)? to experience (to feel) the world. And you know this how? You could show a movie of happenings in his mind, but there'd be nobody there to watch it. I don't think you can show a movie in a mind.? But you could emulate a mind watching a movie. ? Only a monad can do that. And a monad is?? a place holder word for 'we don't know'? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Wonder
On 8/17/2012 10:18 AM, Roger wrote: Hi meekerdb A computer can not experience the wonder produced by the night sky, for example. Many assertions...no proofs. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
