Nuclear Energy is not the answer to the social issue of our energy crisis.

a reply to: themightymerlin

pretty good breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion apparently

US lab stands on threshold of key nuclear fusion goal

An experiment carried out on 8 August yielded 1.35 megajoules (MJ) of energy - around 70% of the laser energy delivered to the fuel capsule. Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that's greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser. "This is a huge advance for fusion and for the entire fusion community," Debbie Callahan, a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which hosts NIF, told BBC News.

NIF scientists also believe they have now achieved something called "burning plasma", where the fusion reactions themselves provide the heat for more fusion. This is vital for making the process self-sustaining.

a reply to: LABTECH767

If you askme... These people here are understanding one thing, some better than others but they are heavily neglecting geopolitical strategy, resource accruement, logistics, actually seeing the results before and after of SMRS and just how much capacity that consistently requires with what most people you wouldn't want touching with a super intelligent AI's hands requires.

a reply to: UpThenDown

How many years this time?

Lol your to much. You can’t even get a girlfriend but your going to solve global energy?

Get out of your grandmas basement and maybe we can talk.
You have as many answers as your threads have substance zero.
a reply to: themightymerlin

a reply to: Moon68

It isn't quite global, others have alot of power too but it isn't the people they had you vote for I will tell you that.

a reply to: Athetos

Is that what you are doing?

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: Bluntone22

Why? I apologize I realize it isn't your decision, you're just misled, probably by the capacity of it. I didn't mean you I meant the ones who can actually do this AND renewables as well but they want money.

Mislead....lol
Keep drinking that renewable cool aid.

a reply to: Bluntone22

And you're gonna drink a radioactive one? aye.

originally posted by: Moon68
Perhaps OP, you could begin by explaining your proposal for how a single entity or organization could power the world?

No one is talking about powering the world but ending the monopoly held by the fossil fuel crooks can only be a good thing, there are even clean(er) alternative to petrol such as Brazil was using with alcohol powered cars.

But Geothermal and Wave energy are everywhere, dig deep enough and you reach parts of the earths crust that would put a nuclear reactors thermal output to shame, we are not using it because it is not easy to dig and would actually be cheaper in many country's to build damns etc and in those instances at least in the short term fossil fuel is cheaper as well.

Wave energy as I point out makes sense in nations were there is plenty of choppy water such as the UK and couple it with wind turbines at sea - not on land no one wants to look at those monstrosity's even a smoke and steam belching cooling tower is better (Actually some cooling towers are works of art - subjective I know but the engineering is brilliant as well).

Tidal power, every sea side nation can produce huge amounts if the want if they have a good tidal range, take the natural affects of the Severn Bore in the UK a famous tidal affect and imagine capturing that energy with a way of storing high tide water and then harnessing the energy through hydraulic damning and driving turbines.


Fossil fuel has served us well but it is well past time we moved on, only monopoly and greed has stopped us from doing so but there are far superior energy sources out there (And some of them have competed all along such as hydroelectricity in the form of Damn's).

a reply to: themightymerlin

Ok, but we can't do it with wind and solar.

We need a major jump in battery technology as well.

We're stuck with Nuclear until we either discover something better, or the current "green" tech becomes WAY more prolific.

a reply to: themightymerlin

You make a very good point, getting the logistics in place will always be problematic especially if it is private company's since they need to make profit constantly and the expenditure to develop and implement many of these cleaner solutions is indeed often very high.

That said in the UK at the time of the Salters Duck Scandal we had state owned energy company's and it could and should have been done then as an investment for the Tax Payers, the very citizens of this nation that once they were sold off those formerly state owned company's then started to rip off big style.

a reply to: MykeNukem

It is patented already and suppressed to gain profit momentum. I know you guys like to talk smack about little links to info that is just common sense to me so I don't know I bother but here you go.

www.iea.org...

It kind of sums up what we face and are being withheld from from the solution they are suppressing for their profit motive but even if %50 is true, that ain't so bad, that's half way.


This isn't some delusional phenomenon it is investigated frequently. Whether you believe these words or those ont the screen or not.

slate.com...

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: themightymerlin

Ok, but we can't do it with wind and solar.

We need a major jump in battery technology as well.

We're stuck with Nuclear until we either discover something better, or the current "green" tech becomes WAY more prolific.

I drove from Michigan’s U.P. All the way to Indiana last weekend and when I passed the wind turbines north of Lansing.
My guess is that about one third of them were not turning which actually surprised me since there was a nice breeze.

You point about batteries is very true but unfortunately chemical batteries are pretty much maxed out.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Yea, always more of the same. No voice of reason to go by so everybody is in a mess.

the problem is this:

consumers that complain about electric power and the monopoly of petroleum and coal

are people who would not be able to produce the necessary energy, from any resource, by individual means,

to survive the onslaught of cold during one winter.

and frankly, the cure for the problem is to force them to do so and eliminate the problem.

until then, petroleum, coal, solar, wind, and hydro monopolies will continue to do what you can't.

a reply to: sraven

I think people know how to buy and install solar panels if they tried. Fire for survival I could see totally being punishable by death in the near future, we're #ed.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: themightymerlin

Ok, but we can't do it with wind and solar.

We need a major jump in battery technology as well.

We're stuck with Nuclear until we either discover something better, or the current "green" tech becomes WAY more prolific.

I drove from Michigan’s U.P. All the way to Indiana last weekend and when I passed the wind turbines north of Lansing.
My guess is that about one third of them were not turning which actually surprised me since there was a nice breeze.

You point about batteries is very true but unfortunately chemical batteries are pretty much maxed out.

We have a major wind farm surrounding our city and I notice the same thing regularly.

Not to mention, it is VERY hard to build an efficient wind turbine that will survive our winters (I'm near the UP in SSM), without heating them, which defeats the purpose.

Batteries for vehicles need to get orders of magnitude better before I'd take an electric down some old bush road that's for sure. Lol. My 4x4 has about a 1200 km range with the tanks I have on it now, I don't think I could find an electric to compare, or I don't think if I did, I could afford it.

a reply to: themightymerlin

Solar energy works great as long as you have bright sky's but give it a disaster scenario, volcanism throwing up debris into the sky, nuclear war, asteroid strike and that darkens the sky's, the panels may still produce some energy but like plants that would die out due to lack of light so too would that energy be very low indeed.

But if it is just wall street crashing and you have panels they will serve you well, as long as you have spare ones as even the best deteriorate over time and older panels could have a life expectancy as short as seven or eight years at one time.

Keep them clean and oriented as best you can to the sun and bob's your uncle.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: themightymerlin

Look there is a monopoly on world energy that is still held by petroleum and coal.

Some forward thinking folks like those that built the Hoover dam over in the States back in the day realized that they would produce energy without the need to buy fuel though the power plant was more expensive to construct it did however also serve as a source of water once they damned the river (currently at a very low point?).

But generally cheap green energy gets pushed under the carpet unless there is a way of wangling LOTS of money out of government and the energy consumers.

Hence the use of Smart Meters for something that should be far cheaper than it is actually sold to the public for, it is not about saving the environment no matter how much they may brainwash people into thinking it is but rather about being able to charge even more for the energy people use, less demand will cause higher prices remember that so people cutting there use will necessitate price rises so that the energy company's can still rake in there profits in other words the smart meters are a SCAM simple as that.

So Green Energy that WE SHOULD BE USING especially over here in the UK but are not because of OIL and COAL and Nuclear (the ONLY reason we have nuclear reactors as power plants is because they needed to produce fuel for nuclear bombs and the power stations are just a spin off of that with claims that Thorium Research was sabotaged because it was not suitable for that goal even though in theory it would have been far cleaner and less dangerous).

And yes this is a left site but it basically explains how the project was shelved and hidden away from the public in what is a scandalous act of fraud against the British public and economy.
www.greenleft.org.au...

Note how those NUCLEAR supporters were keep to push wind power (eyesore, bird killing unreliable Wind Power), even calm seas still have tides and when the duck was becalmed tide power could have produced plenty of energy to supplement it and also back to that Duck why not just plonk wind turbined on top of the Duck anchors as well.

Why, Money and not the cost of implementation that was NEVER the real hurdle but the profit margin and justifying the high price of energy when it can be had for next to nothing.

Solar in the UK, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

a reply to: LABTECH767

I want Geothermal, water is the key to life!