Nuclear energy is a complex subject. How do you tell this story without being too dry and too technical? Gordon McDowell is working on it.
My YouTube Channel
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Quora question
What happens when you react zirconium carbide with water? Anybody?
Update:
Somebody answered the question and said that it is inert.
Update:
Somebody answered the question and said that it is inert.
Production of hydrogen driectly from nuclear processes
The idea for this came from the Fukushima explosion. That explosion was a hydrogen explosion. Since at high temperature, zirconium will react with water which produces the hydrogen and, thus the explosion, it seemed like a possibility for hydrogen production.
One can get high rates of reaction from temperatures of about 1800 Centigrade or possibly higher with finely divided metal.
A quick read of this pdf file yielded the information for this post. Sorry for any errors. I'll look at this again when I have more time.
One can get high rates of reaction from temperatures of about 1800 Centigrade or possibly higher with finely divided metal.
A quick read of this pdf file yielded the information for this post. Sorry for any errors. I'll look at this again when I have more time.
Musing a bit about the future
If I got my wish, and nuclear power were to take over in the United States, what would it mean?
It may well mean that lots of coal miner jobs would disappear. It may well mean a lot of oil field worker's jobs may disappear. This is not something to which I have given thought. Most likely, there are only a few people who might be happy with what I suggest. The political aspect of this not only encompasses the fear of radiation, but the loss of blue collar jobs as well. Not to mention the big wigs who stand to lose big if their industries go obsolete. In short, nobody likes this except for a few geeks and dreamers.
It seems that in years past, when some new idea made things more efficient, people would enthusiastically adopt it. That's because a link was set up between progress and higher wages. That link seems to have been broken. It may have been broken with the coming of robotics. There seems to be less and less need for human labor. The machines are costing people jobs. Now, technological progress could be seen as an enemy, not a friend. This could be bringing out the Luddite faction.
And not without reason, mind you. Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why nuclear is better for lots of people, they are not likely to want to support it.
What could replace the jobs lost to the machines? Now, I have given that some thought. I figured if worst came to worst, people could start growing their own food again. Yes, you heard right. One of the oldest professions is the growing of food. It could make a comeback.
But growing food doesn't pay money. No, but in a world of radical abundance, you may not need much money. Money may even become obsolete. After all, markets exist to ration scarcity. When there's no scarcity, no rationing is needed. When you strip away everything, you only need the basics. Food, shelter and clothing. It doesn't take that much to keep you going.
Not that people should want only a subsistence form of life. But why work when there's nothing to do and the machines do it all? How to pass the time? People could divert themselves in whatever way suits them. Even the growing of one's own food would not necessarily take a lot of time. After all, the plants are doing all the work.
But how to pay for things? You would still have to do something for money, wouldn't you? Yes, but it could be for only a short time. The machines would do most of the hard work. People would do higher level tasks. If only to supervise machines, let's say.
In a really advanced society, money would be needed less and less. Prices for goods would be rather low because of extreme abundance. There would be a lot more time for leisure and self development, if that's your wish.
Life would change. It may be rather tumultuous in the beginning as all change is, but people would adjust to the new reality. Things may take a bit getting used to, but people are adaptable.
The real question is whether or not people will allow the change to occur. Will people hold on to the past, or embrace the future?
Time will answer that question.
It may well mean that lots of coal miner jobs would disappear. It may well mean a lot of oil field worker's jobs may disappear. This is not something to which I have given thought. Most likely, there are only a few people who might be happy with what I suggest. The political aspect of this not only encompasses the fear of radiation, but the loss of blue collar jobs as well. Not to mention the big wigs who stand to lose big if their industries go obsolete. In short, nobody likes this except for a few geeks and dreamers.
It seems that in years past, when some new idea made things more efficient, people would enthusiastically adopt it. That's because a link was set up between progress and higher wages. That link seems to have been broken. It may have been broken with the coming of robotics. There seems to be less and less need for human labor. The machines are costing people jobs. Now, technological progress could be seen as an enemy, not a friend. This could be bringing out the Luddite faction.
And not without reason, mind you. Unless you can come up with a compelling reason why nuclear is better for lots of people, they are not likely to want to support it.
What could replace the jobs lost to the machines? Now, I have given that some thought. I figured if worst came to worst, people could start growing their own food again. Yes, you heard right. One of the oldest professions is the growing of food. It could make a comeback.
But growing food doesn't pay money. No, but in a world of radical abundance, you may not need much money. Money may even become obsolete. After all, markets exist to ration scarcity. When there's no scarcity, no rationing is needed. When you strip away everything, you only need the basics. Food, shelter and clothing. It doesn't take that much to keep you going.
Not that people should want only a subsistence form of life. But why work when there's nothing to do and the machines do it all? How to pass the time? People could divert themselves in whatever way suits them. Even the growing of one's own food would not necessarily take a lot of time. After all, the plants are doing all the work.
But how to pay for things? You would still have to do something for money, wouldn't you? Yes, but it could be for only a short time. The machines would do most of the hard work. People would do higher level tasks. If only to supervise machines, let's say.
In a really advanced society, money would be needed less and less. Prices for goods would be rather low because of extreme abundance. There would be a lot more time for leisure and self development, if that's your wish.
Life would change. It may be rather tumultuous in the beginning as all change is, but people would adjust to the new reality. Things may take a bit getting used to, but people are adaptable.
The real question is whether or not people will allow the change to occur. Will people hold on to the past, or embrace the future?
Time will answer that question.
Without Waiting for Proof, Edward Snowden Foes Begin Spreading Smears
Free Republic
comment:
Curiouser and curiouser. The immigration bill turns down strong border enforcement measures. Yes, the measures that would actually work to enhance national security is what they won't do. But they get their panties in a wad over a leak about this vast spying the NSA does which doesn't even work. So, they approve what won't work and reject what will work.
Are these people nuts?
comment:
Curiouser and curiouser. The immigration bill turns down strong border enforcement measures. Yes, the measures that would actually work to enhance national security is what they won't do. But they get their panties in a wad over a leak about this vast spying the NSA does which doesn't even work. So, they approve what won't work and reject what will work.
Are these people nuts?
Biden: Senators Who Voted No on Gun Control Want to ‘Revisit’ Issue
Free Republic
comment:
Here's another fascinating issue. Why is the administration so hot for this bill when their trust level in the polls is going down? People distrust this president more and more, so why are they doing this? Why would these Senators want to hitch their wagon to this president when he is clearly foundering?
It makes little sense, but there it is.
comment:
Here's another fascinating issue. Why is the administration so hot for this bill when their trust level in the polls is going down? People distrust this president more and more, so why are they doing this? Why would these Senators want to hitch their wagon to this president when he is clearly foundering?
It makes little sense, but there it is.
Rubio Flips Again, Helps Sink Biometric Visa Tracking Amendment
Free Republic
comment:
It is fascinating to watch this. Why would Rubio be a part of this immigration bill? For someone who seems to have higher political ambitions, what is his motivation to support this bill when it is so very unpopular amongst the base of the party? ( A quick look through the comments shows that this is true.)
Yet another fascinating thing is why this bill is being considered when immigration is so low on the priorities of the public. People care about job creation, not this. In fact, flooding the nation with more immigrants is just exactly the opposite of what people actually want their government to do. So, why are they doing this?
If Rubio runs for President and gets the nomination, I would consider it proof that the nomination process is rigged. He has no respect.
comment:
It is fascinating to watch this. Why would Rubio be a part of this immigration bill? For someone who seems to have higher political ambitions, what is his motivation to support this bill when it is so very unpopular amongst the base of the party? ( A quick look through the comments shows that this is true.)
Yet another fascinating thing is why this bill is being considered when immigration is so low on the priorities of the public. People care about job creation, not this. In fact, flooding the nation with more immigrants is just exactly the opposite of what people actually want their government to do. So, why are they doing this?
If Rubio runs for President and gets the nomination, I would consider it proof that the nomination process is rigged. He has no respect.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Is Gold in a bubble?
There has been some talk in recent times to that effect. How do you know when you have a bubble?
One way is to measure the price against some sort of standard.
Now, the price of gold topped around 1980 or thereabouts. About that same time, the Dow Jones average was about the same as an ounce of gold. Fast forward to the year 2000, and the price ratio was nearly 40 ounces for Dow. Clearly,. the ratio was very low in 1980 and very high in 2000. Most folks would agree that gold was in a bubble in 1980 and stocks were in a bubble in 2000. By that standard, the ratio is now around 10 ounces for the Dow. That is comparable to times past. Clearly, by this measurement, gold is not in a bubble.
The ratio with the Dow is about what it was in 1993, just before the big rally in the late nineties.
Keep in mind something, here. The PE ratio is a way to tell if stocks are becoming expensive. The PE ratio now isn't extreme, like it was in 2000. However, it is a bit high.
I did one more check with oil. The price of oil is expensive today. So, is the price of oil in a bubble? It would be if there were an alternative. Since oil is the only thing to power automobiles, planes, and trains, whatever the market will bear is what it will cost. The price of oil v the Dow was cheap in 2000. Oil is relatively expensive v. the Dow today. The same is true with respect to gold.
Conclusion: Gold is not in a bubble. Oil is expensive.
One way is to measure the price against some sort of standard.
Now, the price of gold topped around 1980 or thereabouts. About that same time, the Dow Jones average was about the same as an ounce of gold. Fast forward to the year 2000, and the price ratio was nearly 40 ounces for Dow. Clearly,. the ratio was very low in 1980 and very high in 2000. Most folks would agree that gold was in a bubble in 1980 and stocks were in a bubble in 2000. By that standard, the ratio is now around 10 ounces for the Dow. That is comparable to times past. Clearly, by this measurement, gold is not in a bubble.
The ratio with the Dow is about what it was in 1993, just before the big rally in the late nineties.
Keep in mind something, here. The PE ratio is a way to tell if stocks are becoming expensive. The PE ratio now isn't extreme, like it was in 2000. However, it is a bit high.
I did one more check with oil. The price of oil is expensive today. So, is the price of oil in a bubble? It would be if there were an alternative. Since oil is the only thing to power automobiles, planes, and trains, whatever the market will bear is what it will cost. The price of oil v the Dow was cheap in 2000. Oil is relatively expensive v. the Dow today. The same is true with respect to gold.
Conclusion: Gold is not in a bubble. Oil is expensive.
Start the reactor! Free Mars!
It's just a movie, but there are eerie parallels between the Mars political system in that movie and our own system now. Therefore, start the reactors and free the earth! The power of the atom can free the earth.
Cheney approves NSA snooping
He says that it is only collecting phone numbers. If it were only that, they could just obtain a phone book.
So, either the government is wasting a lot of money to do something that would cost nothing, or Cheney is full of crap, and this involves a lot more than just obtaining phone numbers.
Secondly, if the phone book doesn't contain listed numbers, and the NSA is getting unlisted numbers too, then that shows why it is wrong. People who have unlisted numbers expect privacy. The government isn't honoring these wishes. Besides, the government has no probable cause to receive phone numbers at random. That's the very opposite of probable cause. According to the 4th amendment to the constitution, they have to have probable cause.
So, either the government is wasting a lot of money to do something that would cost nothing, or Cheney is full of crap, and this involves a lot more than just obtaining phone numbers.
Secondly, if the phone book doesn't contain listed numbers, and the NSA is getting unlisted numbers too, then that shows why it is wrong. People who have unlisted numbers expect privacy. The government isn't honoring these wishes. Besides, the government has no probable cause to receive phone numbers at random. That's the very opposite of probable cause. According to the 4th amendment to the constitution, they have to have probable cause.
After passing immigration amnesty, Republicans should go on an overseas apology tour
legalinsurrection.com
quote:
Better to lose than to do that in order to win. If you win, it has to be for something. These people are willing to give away everything in order to win. Such a win might as well be a loss.
If the New Jersey Senator is right, then the only way to win anymore is to get into a bidding war with the Democrats. This is not a future that anyone should want.
quote:
New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, went a step further by predicting on CNN’s “State of the Union” that “there’ll never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party” if immigration overhaul fails to pass.comment:
Better to lose than to do that in order to win. If you win, it has to be for something. These people are willing to give away everything in order to win. Such a win might as well be a loss.
If the New Jersey Senator is right, then the only way to win anymore is to get into a bidding war with the Democrats. This is not a future that anyone should want.
Next Big Future: Could major breakthroughs energy or manufacturing ...
Next Big Future: Could major breakthroughs energy or manufacturing ...: At Overcoming Bias Robin Hanson discussed Eric Drexlers book Radical Abundance. Contrary to steady growth scenarios, much of Drexler’s furt...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)