It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Something weird at a nuke plant in Georgia too...www.abovetopsecret.com... on April 25.
Wow I didn't even know about the incident in Georgia either. I guess I have been missing out on everything the last week or two, insane.
Because LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure, they are less likely than conventional pressurized reactors to spew radioactive elements if an accident occurs. In addition, an increase in operating temperature slows down the nuclear chain reaction, inherently stabilizing the reactor. And LFTRs are designed with a salt plug at the bottom that melts if reactor temperatures somehow do rise too high, draining reactor fluid into a containment vessel where it essentially freezes.
It is estimated that 83 percent of LFTR waste products are safe within 10 years, while the remainder needs to be stored for 300 years. Another advantage is that LFTRs can use plutonium and nuclear waste as fuel, transmuting them into much less radioactive and harmful elements, thus eliminating the need for waste storage lasting up to 10,000 years. No commercial thorium reactors currently exist, although China announced a project earlier this year that aims to develop such reactors.
The main problem with energy supply systems is that for the last 100 years, governments have insisted on meddling with them, using subsidies, setting rates, and picking technologies. Consequently, entrepreneurs, consumers, and especially policymakers have no idea which power supply technologies actually provide the best balance between cost-effectiveness and safety. In any case, let’s hope that the current nuclear disaster will not substantially add to the terrible woes the Japanese must bear as a result of nature’s fickle cruelty.
At this point in history, if all government liability loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies were removed in the energy industry, SOLAR would be the most profitable energy source.
Nuclear, coal and oil plants cost more to build and insure than a couple different varieties of the latest solar plants, and require the purchase of fuel that keeps rising in price. Solar plants cost less to build (at least some of them), and have no future fuel costs, and cost less to insure. Without insurance breaks, nuclear is less profitable that solar. Without subsidies, coal and oil are less profitable than solar. Without government, companies would follow the money to solar.
Originally posted by Firefly_
How come this is not going viral? Surely if anything should do, it is this? I only found out about it looking up information on the floods, its not in any of the major news outlets. This is just as big as Fukushima.
Originally posted by fltcui
reply to post by Firefly_
. No amount of radioactive release is good for us but to fear monger with no definite facts is totatally irresponsible and is typically what you would expect from other sites, not ATS,