BaalChatzaf Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 There is no engineering or scientific reason for the U.S. or any other reasonably prosperous industrial nation to have an "energy shortage" One possible path to energy independence and prosperity are thorium reactors.Please see: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-futureThorium is cheaper and more plentiful than uranium. Thorium reactors produce no plutonium as a byproduct so do not provide a source for illegally produce nuclear weapons. Thorium has much less "waste" than uranium rectors and thorium breeder reactors will make the "waste problem" totally manageable.The only thing that would be blocking such a program would be government and the Cronies. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 There is no engineering or scientific reason for the U.S. or any other reasonably prosperous industrial nation to have an "energy shortage" One possible path to energy independence and prosperity are thorium reactors.Please see: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-futureThorium is cheaper and more plentiful than uranium. Thorium reactors produce no plutonium as a byproduct so do not provide a source for illegally produce nuclear weapons. Thorium has much less "waste" than uranium rectors and thorium breeder reactors will make the "waste problem" totally manageable.see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Breeding_basicsand "http://www.youtube.com/embed/N2vzotsvvkw?The only thing that would be blocking such a program would be government and the Cronies. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 This video has nothing to do with thorium but it shows more reasons why future technology can be bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Language question.From the video: "This tube is 100,000 times smaller than the width of one of your hairs."I understand how something can be 100,000 times larger, but how can something be 100,000 times smaller? Doesn't "times" indicate the act of multiplication, whereas if we are speaking of smallness, would we not be dealing in fractions and thus division?Therefore: "This tube is one one hundred thousandth the width of one of your hairs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Language question.From the video: "This tube is 100,000 times smaller than the width of one of your hairs."I understand how something can be 100,000 times larger, but how can something be 100,000 times smaller? Doesn't "times" indicate the act of multiplication, whereas if we are speaking of smallness, would we not be dealing in fractions and thus division?Therefore: "This tube is one one hundred thousandth the width of one of your hairs."Multiply the width of a human hair by 1/100,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now