Why the U.S. should invest a lot more in nuclear research

theweek.com ^ | June 18, 2015 | Ryan Cooper

[ckilmer]

I don’t disagree. There’s plenty of articles on that.

The ticket is to invest in all of them. Because success in any one of them will make the 21st century a successful planet wide civilization.

[Army Air Corps]

Bump.

[ckilmer]

About a football field lot full in the USA. But that’s enough to power the world for a century.

[Vaduz]

Not a valuable resource for clean-energy.
So true.

[RayChuang88]

Look, we have a great example of what happens if we can turn a piece of desert into arable land: the Imperial Valley of California, the former Salton Sink. Now imagine turning Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt along the Mediterranean coastline into major agricultural producers, thanks to massive desalinization of seawater. Or turning the interior of Australia into arable farmland instead of ranch land for livestock.

With massive seawater desalinization thanks to LFTR power, even agricultural products that need a lot of water like cotton and rice become viable in many parts of the world.

[FredZarguna]

Yep.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html

Don't like the EPA? OK, here's what the industry says about itself: href=http://www.api.org/~/media/files/ehs/environmental_performance/icf-waste-survey-of-eandp-wastes-2000.pdf?la=en

According to the research and PR arm of the domestic Oil and Gas industry, the API: "More than 18 billion barrels of waste fluids from oil and gas production are generated annually in the United States."

Adults understand there are trade offs to everything in life. Children believe there are "perfect" fuels and processes like unicorn farts.

[FredZarguna]

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin over-hypes claims of a fusion breakthrough in order to gather investors.

[FredZarguna]

You mean, compared to the 18 billion gallons of waste currently produced EVERY YEAR by oil and gas production?

[FredZarguna]

The full quote:

... not a valuable resource for clean-energy ... IS FOLLY

So true.

Yes. So true: what Vaduz believes is folly.

[Vaduz]

How much GE stock do you own?.

[Vaduz]

That doesn’t have a 25,000 year half life like nuclear waste.

[Vaduz]

Gee like hydrogen fuel?.

[Little Ray]

“Yes.”

Not to mention build a lot more nuclear reactors for power and a couple of fast breeders to process the waste back into fuel.

[PIF]

“Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin over-hypes claims of a fusion breakthrough in order to gather investors.”

Or so some would like to believe ...

[FredZarguna]

Let me tell you something. When I was at a Cal Tech seminar some years ago, Edward Teller -- one of only three people in the world who've actually figured out how to get fusion to happen -- was asked how close we are to achieving a controlled fusion. He looked around the room and said, "It may happen within the lifetimes of a few young men in this room."

I was a 26 year old graduate student at that time. I am in my sixties now. I would love for fusion to be a reality within my lifetime. But there is NOTHING in Lockheed Martin's press release that indicates they have achieved any kind of a breakthrough.

[FredZarguna]

Right. We can either manage about 5 trash cans of nuclear waste [which is about the annual production of waste from modern reactors] or 18 billion gallons of some of the most carcinogenic toxins known to man.

And your choice is the latter.

Science much?

[FredZarguna]

Hydrogen is not a fuel using present technology available on earth. Some hydrogen may become a fuel if we ever figure out how to sustain a net +Q fusion reaction.

Claiming H₂ in electrochemical fuel cells is a "clean fuel" shows how little you know. Hydrogen is not a source of electrochemical energy on this planet, because there is NO FREE Hydrogen. None.

All the hydrogen ever used in a fuel cell is put there either by fossil fuels or nuclear energy, because the Hydrogen on this planet either went into space or was bonded to metals, Carbon, or Oxygen long ago.

[FredZarguna]

You haven't answered a man's arguments because you've impugned his motives.

Even so, I own zero stock in GE. Nor would I ever buy stock in a company that has shipped so many jobs and so much of our technology to the Communists in China.

Now try actually making an argument.

[Vaduz]

No reason what so ever to use nuclear power because of the dangers of it’s waste so much has already leaked into the soil.

[Vaduz]

We can either manage about 5 trash cans of nuclear waste,
The numbers sound fuzzy nuclear waste is much greater than that.