One of the questions I have is why we are spending billions on chasing fusion reactors (and they've been telling us for the last 50 years we'd have them in the next 5) while no one is AFAIK working on Thorium reactors which from everything I've read, seem to be one of the best options for cheap energy.
(Lets put aside for the time being the instance from some officials that wanted the current type of nuclear reactor so they could make weapons grade fuel)
(Lets put aside for the time being the instance from some officials that wanted the current type of nuclear reactor so they could make weapons grade fuel)
Could be that the court judgement isn't yet published and therefore every comment is solely based on opinions from the adversaries, which should be taken with a grain of salt.
At a first glance it seems that the data sets aren't the problem (seems these are openly accessible via ftp server) but the specific processing is not disclosed up to now.
But as said above, reading the court judgement is the only way to know what was happening.
One thing I have noticed is that, often times, after a hurricane has run it's course and dissipated, that the temperature tends to drop. Sometimes it will drop significantly. No real science here on my side, but I also wonder if nature has more ways to deal with temperature changes than we allow and account for. I wonder if hurricanes actually function like a radiator, bringing hot surface temperatures to the upper atmosphere, performing a natural cooling effect. I am certainly not attempting to debunk or overthrow any realities out there, but it's just a wonder of mine. I suppose it could be quite possible that things like hurricanes account for balancing the weather and temperatures in some way.
One last comment about this. There is something in the Christian Bible about someone casting stones against someone else as if they themself was totally innocent. I see a similar thing in a way about burning the Amazon forest. To me leaders in the G7, when they can say that their country has done everything it can and I mean everything, then they earn the right to point at the other country. It's like a small liar pointing out that the other guy is a bigger liar. A liar is a liar. Period. There are no such things as white lies either. So with that does anyone take politicians seriously or really pay attention to what they say? If you do, well, maybe you'll wisen up in time. Time is a healer and a teacher.
Out.
Out.
You ought to stop this notion that anyone up there in charge cares about your or my wellbeing and thus you need to rationalize their lack of action, lack of agreement, the unavailability and/or high cost of technology etc. etc.
Why do you think Roosevelt could invest into Civilian Conservation Corps and pay 3 million young people wages when everybody else was starving in the great depression, and task them to plant trees, make animal shelters, campsites etc. (like that was what everyone needed the most). Well he did explain himself by stating: "“the forests are the lungs of our land [which] purify our air and give fresh strength to our people.” (p.s. one would have to be both starving and stupid to believe that).
When you are at it you can also answer how he could start ending great depression by simply announcing "the new deal" over the radio. If a pretty speech was all it took to end it, why was there a great depression in the first place?
And then you continue on and on until the present day and ask yourself why you need to be humiliated by taking your shoes and belt off and spreading arms at the airport security. Sure, this is worth investing into to prevent a terrorist attack bringing an airplane down and to save valuable lives, right? The fact that an equivalent of an airplanefull dies every day on the roads in the US alone is not worth talking about. God forbid we have to invest into road safety, and save ~2,000 children from being killed every year and many many more from being disabled. After all if more immigrants are taken into account the percentage loss does not look that bad, (at least not when viewed from the top).
And mind you: do not smoke and do exercise and eat well if you do not want to die from cancer. It is all your responsibility! not really a topic for investing money into. Take this advice from D. Rockefeller who proved it by living to 100+ and from Kissindzer who must be doing a lot of exercises too since he seems to be on a good track as well.
After you get the right context we can talk about the climate change too. You may not like the answers but you should be more prepared after you have found answers to those questions above and many more similar which could be posed.
Why do you think Roosevelt could invest into Civilian Conservation Corps and pay 3 million young people wages when everybody else was starving in the great depression, and task them to plant trees, make animal shelters, campsites etc. (like that was what everyone needed the most
). Well he did explain himself by stating: "“the forests are the lungs of our land [which] purify our air and give fresh strength to our people.” (p.s. one would have to be both starving and stupid to believe that).When you are at it you can also answer how he could start ending great depression by simply announcing "the new deal" over the radio. If a pretty speech was all it took to end it, why was there a great depression in the first place?
And then you continue on and on until the present day and ask yourself why you need to be humiliated by taking your shoes and belt off and spreading arms at the airport security. Sure, this is worth investing into to prevent a terrorist attack bringing an airplane down and to save valuable lives, right? The fact that an equivalent of an airplanefull dies every day on the roads in the US alone is not worth talking about. God forbid we have to invest into road safety, and save ~2,000 children from being killed every year and many many more from being disabled. After all if more immigrants are taken into account the percentage loss does not look that bad, (at least not when viewed from the top).
And mind you: do not smoke and do exercise and eat well if you do not want to die from cancer. It is all your responsibility! not really a topic for investing money into. Take this advice from D. Rockefeller who proved it by living to 100+ and from Kissindzer who must be doing a lot of exercises too since he seems to be on a good track as well.
After you get the right context we can talk about the climate change too. You may not like the answers but you should be more prepared after you have found answers to those questions above and many more similar which could be posed.
Last edited:
Hi, my 2 cents:
I have not read the whole thread, so I may be reepating what may have been already said, but, to me it is of paramount importance to stop burning fossil fuels. Diesel, gasoline, kerosene, all derivatives. Also, stop burning coal and wood pellets. I used to live close to a coal powered plant, and you cannot imagine how bad the pollution was. Or a fume from a bad diesel engine with a broken dpf filter.
But, two problems: First, there is no suitable energy storage yet, that has the same energy density as gasoline. Better batteries are coming, but there is still a long way to go. Hydrogen sounds nice, but is highly flamable.
Energy source: fission, but gen 4 reactors, and hopefuly fusion. But then, even if fusion suceeds, and new batteries get to the market, who will have the courage, power and will to dismantle the oil energy giants?
I come to the point that I tend to believe that only some benevolent aliens can save us humans from destroying ourselves, but that is not gonna happen, and humans are so far very sucessful at destroying themselves , unfortunately....
I have not read the whole thread, so I may be reepating what may have been already said, but, to me it is of paramount importance to stop burning fossil fuels. Diesel, gasoline, kerosene, all derivatives. Also, stop burning coal and wood pellets. I used to live close to a coal powered plant, and you cannot imagine how bad the pollution was. Or a fume from a bad diesel engine with a broken dpf filter.
But, two problems: First, there is no suitable energy storage yet, that has the same energy density as gasoline. Better batteries are coming, but there is still a long way to go. Hydrogen sounds nice, but is highly flamable.
Energy source: fission, but gen 4 reactors, and hopefuly fusion. But then, even if fusion suceeds, and new batteries get to the market, who will have the courage, power and will to dismantle the oil energy giants?
I come to the point that I tend to believe that only some benevolent aliens can save us humans from destroying ourselves, but that is not gonna happen, and humans are so far very sucessful at destroying themselves , unfortunately....
Having seen a documentary about Thorium molten salt reactors it raises the question if it could be too good to be true. Self regulation which prevents core melting, no weapon usage, a lot less radioactive waste and so on.
But it seems as if it isn't true (at least partly), although there is much more Thorium than Uranium you still need Uran isotopes to start the process and the negative temperature coeffizient overall (that prevents core melting) seems to be at risk in bigger reactor concepts.
Although there is less radioactive waste compared to the already used 'normal' reactors but there is stil production of some very long lasting isotopes, half-life period ~ mio years, and of course these reactor types still can be used for the production of nuclear bomb material.
Unfortunately also not my field of expertise, but there seems to be still research done on it (China and others) and prototypes are in development.
As the efficiency of renewable energy is still raising it is IMO questionable if usage of the high risk reactors is a good idea.
Given our history I've my doubts that we are good at keeping an eye on radioactive waste over thousands of years (isn't it already a problem to think in times spans of decades?) .
Storage of energy seems still one of the major problems of renewable energy production but hydrogen could be a solution (there is some progress in finding a carrier to store hydrogen in without the need of high pressure liquidification).
The amount of energy that can be released safely into the atmosphere is finite. This means, although far fetched, even with the advent of fusion reactors becoming stable and economically viable, the world still has to be careful about the total energy used.
An energy-neutral solution is to use energy from the sun, the waves, tides and winds. I am avoiding the term 'renewable' as this is scientifically incorrect.
An energy-neutral solution is to use energy from the sun, the waves, tides and winds. I am avoiding the term 'renewable' as this is scientifically incorrect.
One person told me a long time ago:
I don't know if there is a God, but if there is, it is evil !
There has been a mod discussion on the matter and the consensus is that, whilst this discussion is of importance, it is not possible to fully discuss without delving into politics, which is against the forum rules. For that reason we are closing the thread and ask that similar threads not be started. - Status
- Not open for further replies.