Global Warming Today

[ldo17]

We should continue trying to reduce emissions.

Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over, in the hope that the outcome will be different this time.

CO₂ emissions are not coming down at any meaningful rate, and it’s clear they never will.

We should keep trying to improve efficiency. ... We should should mandate hybrid electric power trains for all 4 wheeled road legal vehicles.

The term for that is “rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic”. Particularly since nobody seems to be considering the energy cost of manufacturing these power trains, the environmental impact from the increased toxic waste etc.

Everything we do, once we start doing it on a large enough scale, no matter how “green” you may think it is, has an environmental impact.

We should legalize research into thorium salt fast breeders.

Now that is an interesting idea.I have long felt that we took a wrong turn with nuclear power...

[bridgman]

re: thorium-cycle reactors... the interesting thing is that the set of countries with big thorium reserves is almost opposite from the set of countries with big uranium reserves (other than Australia, which seems to have a lot of everything) so there will probably be some forking of technologies over the next 20-30 years.

Canada has a lot more uranium than thorium, so I don't see us straying too far from uranium any time soon.

My favorite comment from the link you posted:

Which brings us back to where we came in: remember how I said that the original predictions about the future at the turn of the 21st century were built on the assumption of abundant energy availability? And what we got was abundant information-processing capability instead? Well, now that information-processing capability has grown to the point where it starts to be constrained by the energy availability.

[duby229]

re: thorium-cycle reactors... the interesting thing is that the set of countries with big thorium reserves is almost opposite from the set of countries with big uranium reserves (other than Australia, which seems to have a lot of everything) so there will probably be some forking of technologies over the next 20-30 years.

Canada has a lot more uranium than thorium, so I don't see us straying too far from uranium any time soon.

My favorite comment from the link you posted:

u235 and u238 are both fissionable, they will never be found in consumer devices. Thorium is not fissionable in any isotope and nothing can be done to make it fissionable, so it actually has a real possibility of becoming a power source in real life devices. -No one- will ever be able to make a thorium nuke. It won't happen. It is -the- solution to abundant power without the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Also, please recognize what a nuclear power plant is. It's actually a gigantic device called a slow breeder and is the most dangerous power production method in the world because it has the potential to meltdown. With Thorium power can be produced in a fast breeder which is only produces stable reactions in a single chamber, drain the chamber and the reaction stops. With thorium fast breeders meltdowns are impossible because the reactions can be stopped instantly.

[duby229]

Remember Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over, in the hope that the outcome will be different this time.

CO₂ emissions are not coming down at any meaningful rate, and it’s clear they never will.

The term for that is “rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic”. Particularly since nobody seems to be considering the energy cost of manufacturing these power trains, the environmental impact from the increased toxic waste etc.

Everything we do, once we start doing it on a large enough scale, no matter how “green” you may think it is, has an environmental impact.

Now that is an interesting idea.I have long felt that we took a wrong turn with nuclear power...

If you count how many of Einsteins mathematical forms are physically impossible and therefore wrong, then of course it is common sense to conclude that his phylosophy is just as wrong. I mean for fucks sake the man's math was all algebraic, he didn't even attempt to learn calculus. He was illiterate as fuck.

He was made famous by the American government in a massive propaganda campaign that was directly tied to the Manhattan project. Sure he had some fame in germany before his move to the US, but he was proven wrong so many times already long before ww2. The US needed a puppet and so they got one.

It's already been proven that sub particles don't move, they actually teleport, literally. The problem with e=mc2 is c. C doesn't exist, it never did. It isn't real. A few important people knew it as soon as that nonsense was made up. Relativity does exist, but only in so far as space is actually an energy field and one position can be calculated relative to another position.

[droste]

If you count how many of Einsteins mathematical forms are physically impossible and therefore wrong, then of course it is common sense to conclude that his phylosophy is just as wrong. I mean for fucks sake the man's math was all algebraic, he didn't even attempt to learn calculus. He was illiterate as fuck.

He was made famous by the American government in a massive propaganda campaign that was directly tied to the Manhattan project. Sure he had some fame in germany before his move to the US, but he was proven wrong so many times already long before ww2. The US needed a puppet and so they got one.

It's already been proven that sub particles don't move, they actually teleport, literally. The problem with e=mc2 is c. C doesn't exist, it never did. It isn't real. A few important people knew it as soon as that nonsense was made up. Relativity does exist, but only in so far as space is actually an energy field and one position can be calculated relative to another position.

Holy cow :-D You are somewhat right, that particles don't move, because the current theory (QFD) is they aren't actually particles but excited states in a field. But how the hell do you conclude from that that 'c' doesn't exist and that all of Einsteins work is just a huge conspiracy? :-D

[aht0]

from "global warming" to particulars of quantum mechanics. I love Phoronix.

[duby229]

Holy cow :-D You are somewhat right, that particles don't move, because the current theory (QFD) is they aren't actually particles but excited states in a field. But how the hell do you conclude from that that 'c' doesn't exist and that all of Einsteins work is just a huge conspiracy? :-D

For example, an electron -cannot- move as fast as a photon, it's physically larger it can't. Just as much as a photon -cannot- move as fast as a neutrino. And yet Einstien's equations require all particles to have the same maximum speed regardless of their mass. When his equations didn't work he made up a though experiment, which doesn't happen in the real world, about speed warping time in order to explain away the fact that different particles have different mass and therefore move at different speeds.

EDIT: Which isn't motion actually, it's teleportation where the position of a particle in time is a function called superposition.

EDIT: Sub particles are 1 dimensional, there is no left and right, no up and down, no in and out. They can't move, they "consume" all of the space in which they are capable of being aware of. So in a sense mass itself is a kind of spacial manifold.

EDIT: It is very highly likely that what gravity actually is, is inertial waves that can transverse space itself like a fluid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_wave Real shit dawg. Plasmoids always rotate at the center of gravity, if the plasmoid has uneven chemistry where the mass rotates off balance, it generates inertial waves through space itself. Just like a sine wave there are valleys in the waveform and it is in those valleys that mass falls into. That's what gravity is. If modern science is right, and I think it is, then Einstein must be wrong.

EDIT: This right here is fundamentally what gravity actually is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsPmGQ_73_o

[bridgman]

u235 and u238 are both fissionable, they will never be found in consumer devices. Thorium is not fissionable in any isotope and nothing can be done to make it fissionable, so it actually has a real possibility of becoming a power source in real life devices. -No one- will ever be able to make a thorium nuke. It won't happen. It is -the- solution to abundant power without the risk of nuclear proliferation.

You can't make a thorium nuke, but the thorium cycle creates U-233 which AFAIK can make a nuke. Some older docs say that U-233 is impractical for weapons use because the U-232 mixed in makes it dangerous to use (high radiation, touchy) but more recent reports note that if you separate out Pa-233 early in the cycle then you get cleaner and more usable U-233. I'm not quite sure how that works (I thought Pa-233 decay was also what produced U-233) but apparently it does (or is claimed to be able to) work.

Anyways, key point AFAIK is that the U-233 output of the thorium cycle *is* fissionable, but unless U-232 levels are kept very low it is not practical for weapons yet. I remember reading somewhere that one of the goals of India's thorium program was to stockpile U-233 for use as a fuel.

Also, please recognize what a nuclear power plant is. It's actually a gigantic device called a slow breeder and is the most dangerous power production method in the world because it has the potential to meltdown. With Thorium power can be produced in a fast breeder which is only produces stable reactions in a single chamber, drain the chamber and the reaction stops. With thorium fast breeders meltdowns are impossible because the reactions can be stopped instantly.

Ahh, you are doing the thing that gets my nuke friends upset - conflating the benefits of a molten salt reactor (which is also used with uranium) and the benefits of the thorium cycle itself.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there isn't a bright future for thorium-cycle power plans, just saying that it's not quite as black-and-white as the hype suggests.

[duby229]

You can't make a thorium nuke, but the thorium cycle creates U-233 which AFAIK can make a nuke. Some older docs say that U-233 is impractical for weapons use because the U-232 mixed in makes it dangerous to use (high radiation, touchy) but more recent reports note that if you separate out Pa-233 early in the cycle then you get cleaner and more usable U-233. I'm not quite sure how that works (I thought Pa-233 decay was also what produced U-233) but apparently it does (or is claimed to be able to) work.

Anyways, key point AFAIK is that the U-233 output of the thorium cycle *is* fissionable, but unless U-232 levels are kept very low it is not practical for weapons yet. I remember reading somewhere that one of the goals of India's thorium program was to stockpile U-233 for use as a fuel.



Ahh, you are doing the thing that gets my nuke friends upset - conflating the benefits of a molten salt reactor (which is also used with uranium) and the benefits of the thorium cycle itself.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there isn't a bright future for thorium-cycle power plans, just saying that it's not quite as black-and-white as the hype suggests.

I understand what you're saying, but in reality only fast breeder designs can be miniaturized. Consumer devices can be powered by fully integrated solid state molten salt power cells, when that happens it won't be uranium in those devices it'll be thorium. I'm not familiar with what all the decay processes are, but if u233 can be made fissionable, then that is a serious flaw in this idea.

[ldo17]

If you count how many of Einsteins mathematical forms are physically impossible and therefore wrong, then of course it is common sense to conclude that his phylosophy is just as wrong. I mean for fucks sake the man's math was all algebraic, he didn't even attempt to learn calculus. He was illiterate as fuck.

Have you looked at General Relativity at all?

He was made famous by the American government in a massive propaganda campaign ...

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. Guess where he was then? Germany. He didn’t go to the US until much later.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but you sound so much like certain groups who came to power in that country not long after ...