The Professor has a post that reminded me of the Simon and Garfunkel tune.
The song reminded me of my own youth and the feeling of that time. What does the song mean? It may mean different things to different people. Perhaps different things at different times. At the time, it was the uncertainty and wariness of the road ahead. But the concern at that time was for myself. These days, the concern is for the country and what lies ahead for us all-- even after I am gone. There may not be a whole lot any one person can do that affects things very much one way or another. Perhaps things won't be as good as you might hope, nor as bad as you may fear. It was that way for me.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Top 5 Joker Scenes
When I read about this, I think of this.
Update:
The point is that it may be life imitating art. Someone like that may not have all his wits about him. At least that is the impression I have about the Luby's thing. The Joker thing is of a guy who knows what he's doing and is committed to doing it because of a reason. The former implies insanity, the latter implies evil. It takes knowledge to become evil--- one has to know the difference. In this instance, it is hard to say which is which and who is who.
Update:
This individual is trying to appear to be above it all. But I'm skeptical that she is all that she is trying to appear to be.
Update:
The point is that it may be life imitating art. Someone like that may not have all his wits about him. At least that is the impression I have about the Luby's thing. The Joker thing is of a guy who knows what he's doing and is committed to doing it because of a reason. The former implies insanity, the latter implies evil. It takes knowledge to become evil--- one has to know the difference. In this instance, it is hard to say which is which and who is who.
Update:
This individual is trying to appear to be above it all. But I'm skeptical that she is all that she is trying to appear to be.
Q and A with Sorensen on the LFTR
Kirk Sorensen @ MRU on LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
Sorensen is a fountain of knowledge on the subject of LFTRs. There's so much information here that you can get information overload. So, what I did here was break it down into smaller pieces with individual questions of interest.
Why florine for LFTRs?
The case for an energy revolution.
Why you don't want to use U235 like we are doing now.
Concept of hormesis. It is the dose that matters. This includes radiation.
How to promote thorium to people who have money.
Comparison between Fukushima and Chernobyl
Natural radiation in a "safe" area compared to "unsafe" Chernobyl
How to throttle the reactor like an aircraft engine.
One of the many advantages of liquid core reactor v solid core reactor
Will history forgive us if we don't do LFTRs?
An idea to put one of these under water.
Fossil fuels release more radioactivity than a nuke plant would ever be allowed to release.
Sorensen is a fountain of knowledge on the subject of LFTRs. There's so much information here that you can get information overload. So, what I did here was break it down into smaller pieces with individual questions of interest.
Why florine for LFTRs?
The case for an energy revolution.
Why you don't want to use U235 like we are doing now.
Concept of hormesis. It is the dose that matters. This includes radiation.
How to promote thorium to people who have money.
Comparison between Fukushima and Chernobyl
Natural radiation in a "safe" area compared to "unsafe" Chernobyl
How to throttle the reactor like an aircraft engine.
One of the many advantages of liquid core reactor v solid core reactor
Will history forgive us if we don't do LFTRs?
An idea to put one of these under water.
Fossil fuels release more radioactivity than a nuke plant would ever be allowed to release.
Faith in our leadership misplaced
With respect to the issue of energy, it appears that people have too much faith in our leadership in making the best possible choices. Why too much faith? Because the assumption seems to be this: if it is so good, why isn't it being done? The assumption is that very thing---faith that the leadership will do the right thing. If the faith is misplaced, the wrong thing will be done because of the blind followership will not adequately question the decisions of the leadership.
The use of thorium in a molten salt reactor was the right thing to do 40 years ago, yet it wasn't done. Not because of a flaw in the concept, but a flaw in the decision making that led to its being lost and forgotten. We have been lost in this wilderness of failure for these past 40 years and that will have to change if we are going to get ourselves out of these troubling times.
It's time to question the leadership if they are not going to wake up and pursue this course that should have been pursued long ago.
Nuclear fission energy from a LFTR doesn't even have to be our sole source of energy. It could exist as only a backup plan in case other plans that are being funded-- fail. If solar and wind fail, this can succeed. If nuclear fusion fails, this can succeed. If fossil fuels are too polluting, this can be cleaner.
Is this type of nuclear energy cleaner than fossil? Yes. Both from the radioactive issue and from the carbon issue. Radioactivity in fossil fuels? Yes! There's more radioactivity in the fossil fuels than the radioactivity in this type of nuclear reactor. Impossible you say? No, not impossible at all. The idea that a nuclear reactor releases more radioactivity overlooks the fact that nuclear energy is much more powerful than fossil fuels. It can produce more energy, yet send less (if not zero) radioactivity into the environment. If you don't like radioactivity in the environment, you should love nuclear reactors-- particularly the molten salt reactor. It is safe and it is clean. Fossil fuels are not free from radioactivity. That too is being overlooked.
You may object to the very notion of radioactivity. But it is in the environment already. There's nothing that can be done about this. If you hate radioactivity, then you should still love nuclear reactors of this kind because after 300 years of the fission product in storage, there will be less radioactivity than what existed prior to their utilization in making energy. It actually reduces the amount of radioactivity in the environment. No other form of energy can do this. Not even solar and wind can do this. The molten salt reactor which utilizes the thorium fuel cycle can actually improve upon nature, and is better in virtually all aspects.
But not all. There are some risks. But the risks can be managed. Besides, there are also risks in failing to do this because of the risk of failure to produce the quantity of energy necessary. And that quantity is vast. Wind and solar can't provide it all. Fusion may be too hard to achieve. The reliance upon nature alone isn't going to be enough. We may need more energy than we anticipate. We had better at least have a backup plan. If the risk is deemed to be too great for now, it may not be deemed to be too great later. By that time, it may be too late.
So there you have it. Some of the leadership believes all too often that nature is perfect and risk free. Humans cannot improve upon it. But what if that's wrong? Others believe that another form of energy will be found that's better. But what if that is wrong too? Finally, too many may believe that we will have enough time. But what if we run out of time?
Forty years ago, the thorium molten salt reactor was set aside in favor of the fast breeder reactor. The fast breeder failed. But if that decision had included a backup plan which included thorium, we'd have had a backup plan which could have succeeded which could have substituted for the one that failed. That failure should not be repeated.
Update:
By the way, I should mention that these arguments in favor of LFTRs are not mine. They are Kirk Sorensen's, but they are well worth repeating. That's because those arguments are true and correct, in my opinion. If truth matters, this should matter. If truth doesn't matter, then no arguments will be necessary.
The use of thorium in a molten salt reactor was the right thing to do 40 years ago, yet it wasn't done. Not because of a flaw in the concept, but a flaw in the decision making that led to its being lost and forgotten. We have been lost in this wilderness of failure for these past 40 years and that will have to change if we are going to get ourselves out of these troubling times.
It's time to question the leadership if they are not going to wake up and pursue this course that should have been pursued long ago.
Nuclear fission energy from a LFTR doesn't even have to be our sole source of energy. It could exist as only a backup plan in case other plans that are being funded-- fail. If solar and wind fail, this can succeed. If nuclear fusion fails, this can succeed. If fossil fuels are too polluting, this can be cleaner.
Is this type of nuclear energy cleaner than fossil? Yes. Both from the radioactive issue and from the carbon issue. Radioactivity in fossil fuels? Yes! There's more radioactivity in the fossil fuels than the radioactivity in this type of nuclear reactor. Impossible you say? No, not impossible at all. The idea that a nuclear reactor releases more radioactivity overlooks the fact that nuclear energy is much more powerful than fossil fuels. It can produce more energy, yet send less (if not zero) radioactivity into the environment. If you don't like radioactivity in the environment, you should love nuclear reactors-- particularly the molten salt reactor. It is safe and it is clean. Fossil fuels are not free from radioactivity. That too is being overlooked.
You may object to the very notion of radioactivity. But it is in the environment already. There's nothing that can be done about this. If you hate radioactivity, then you should still love nuclear reactors of this kind because after 300 years of the fission product in storage, there will be less radioactivity than what existed prior to their utilization in making energy. It actually reduces the amount of radioactivity in the environment. No other form of energy can do this. Not even solar and wind can do this. The molten salt reactor which utilizes the thorium fuel cycle can actually improve upon nature, and is better in virtually all aspects.
But not all. There are some risks. But the risks can be managed. Besides, there are also risks in failing to do this because of the risk of failure to produce the quantity of energy necessary. And that quantity is vast. Wind and solar can't provide it all. Fusion may be too hard to achieve. The reliance upon nature alone isn't going to be enough. We may need more energy than we anticipate. We had better at least have a backup plan. If the risk is deemed to be too great for now, it may not be deemed to be too great later. By that time, it may be too late.
So there you have it. Some of the leadership believes all too often that nature is perfect and risk free. Humans cannot improve upon it. But what if that's wrong? Others believe that another form of energy will be found that's better. But what if that is wrong too? Finally, too many may believe that we will have enough time. But what if we run out of time?
Forty years ago, the thorium molten salt reactor was set aside in favor of the fast breeder reactor. The fast breeder failed. But if that decision had included a backup plan which included thorium, we'd have had a backup plan which could have succeeded which could have substituted for the one that failed. That failure should not be repeated.
Update:
By the way, I should mention that these arguments in favor of LFTRs are not mine. They are Kirk Sorensen's, but they are well worth repeating. That's because those arguments are true and correct, in my opinion. If truth matters, this should matter. If truth doesn't matter, then no arguments will be necessary.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Misleading Wisconsin Poll Has Obama Ahead
Dick Morris
Comment:
Polls get used for political purposes. If Obama is seen as vulnerable in Wisconsin, his whole campaign is in jeopardy. The political needs of Obama is not to be seen as a loser. Can that ruse be maintained through October and into November?
The fact is that the Walker victory is a solid indication that Romney has an excellent chance of carrying Wisconsin. Undoubtedly, he was under 50% of the Wisconsin vote among all recall election voters — absentees included.
Comment:
Polls get used for political purposes. If Obama is seen as vulnerable in Wisconsin, his whole campaign is in jeopardy. The political needs of Obama is not to be seen as a loser. Can that ruse be maintained through October and into November?
Everyone’s Gone To The Moon
blogs.airspacemag.com
quote from a linked to article in the piece:
Not hard to understand that point of view if you consider what the person having it thinks of the space program. If one thinks of it only as flags and footprints ( bread and circus), then "been there" fits in that mindset very easily.
Clearly, if bread and circuses are all we want, there may be other ways to satisfy those. The space program then becomes expendable.
Should that be what we want?
Obviously, I think not. We should want to settle space because that has the potential to be the next big growth industry. That is, if growth is what you seek.
quote from a linked to article in the piece:
I’ve heard the “been there” line many times..I wonder if supporters of this new space policy have stopped to consider the implications of the “not been there” requirement. The new meaning of exploration contains within it the seeds of its own termination: after you’ve touched the surface, planted a flag, and collected some rocks or deployed an instrument, that destination is “done.”Comment:
Not hard to understand that point of view if you consider what the person having it thinks of the space program. If one thinks of it only as flags and footprints ( bread and circus), then "been there" fits in that mindset very easily.
Clearly, if bread and circuses are all we want, there may be other ways to satisfy those. The space program then becomes expendable.
Should that be what we want?
Obviously, I think not. We should want to settle space because that has the potential to be the next big growth industry. That is, if growth is what you seek.
Fads and belief systems
First, let's distinguish between a fad and a more established belief system, such as an organized religion.
Fads come and go, belief systems endure.
Has environmentalism been mostly a fad, or is it now a permanent part of the culture?
Man made global warming theory (AGW) appears to be the battle line between faddishness and permanence. There has been a long term interest in conservation. Environmentalism grew from that movement into its own movement. But AGW hasn't been established as fact with respect to what is being conserved. How does one conserve climate? Climate has always been variable.
Global warming theory is part of a larger system of thought that goes beyond mere conservation. It must be an attempt to establish a new set of beliefs that is intended to supercede the old system. But it may be only a passing fad.
Western Civilization is scientific. It is necessary to establish AGW as a legitimate science before the belief system can succeed. Hence the battle ground.
But AGW may itself be a part of challenging Western Civilization itself and its science. For if a unscientific notion can be imposed upon a scientific society, that society has been undermined.
Caution may be in order with respect to making major changes in the environment. That idea can take hold. But caution also should be applied to the thought environment of new ideas that haven't been proven yet, nor their effects been studied and understood. The mind is also an environment. One should be careful about what is introduced into that as well.
Fads come and go, belief systems endure.
Has environmentalism been mostly a fad, or is it now a permanent part of the culture?
Man made global warming theory (AGW) appears to be the battle line between faddishness and permanence. There has been a long term interest in conservation. Environmentalism grew from that movement into its own movement. But AGW hasn't been established as fact with respect to what is being conserved. How does one conserve climate? Climate has always been variable.
Global warming theory is part of a larger system of thought that goes beyond mere conservation. It must be an attempt to establish a new set of beliefs that is intended to supercede the old system. But it may be only a passing fad.
Western Civilization is scientific. It is necessary to establish AGW as a legitimate science before the belief system can succeed. Hence the battle ground.
But AGW may itself be a part of challenging Western Civilization itself and its science. For if a unscientific notion can be imposed upon a scientific society, that society has been undermined.
Caution may be in order with respect to making major changes in the environment. That idea can take hold. But caution also should be applied to the thought environment of new ideas that haven't been proven yet, nor their effects been studied and understood. The mind is also an environment. One should be careful about what is introduced into that as well.
Renewable energy sources?
This term "renewable" seems too much like conventional wisdom. No energy source is renewable. They will all die out eventually. The sun will burn itself out. Every star does that. Entropy is increasing in the universe. Things fall apart, that is the natural order. It can be only relatively renewable in the sense that the new are born to take the place of the old.
Can humans improve upon nature? Not according to this:
But not so fast. People may be able to make things that are better than the natural thing. This isn't necessarily true all the time, but sometimes it is. A car is better than a horse. But wait, maybe that depends upon how you define "better".
But cars can be made better than they are at a faster rate than evolution can supply the changes.
Can humans improve upon nature? Not according to this:
But not so fast. People may be able to make things that are better than the natural thing. This isn't necessarily true all the time, but sometimes it is. A car is better than a horse. But wait, maybe that depends upon how you define "better".
But cars can be made better than they are at a faster rate than evolution can supply the changes.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Obama’s Unhappy Left Flank
Dick Morris
Comment:
"Dogs him"? Was that a joke?
But seriously, Obama is too rigid to lead. He is too ideological. In the end, it is results that count. He can't go on the way he is, or if he does, he has to go.
While Republican attacks on Obama over the economy are multiplying, the president’s real troubles might be the other end of the spectrum, among his natural supporters on the left. There, dissatisfaction, disillusionment and concerns about whether he is up to the job dog him.
Comment:
"Dogs him"? Was that a joke?
But seriously, Obama is too rigid to lead. He is too ideological. In the end, it is results that count. He can't go on the way he is, or if he does, he has to go.
The “People United” Go Down In Flames
Via Media, Walter Russell Mead's Blog
Excerpts:
Blame everyone but themselves. Assume that the whole world revolves around them and them alone. The left is infantile. They need to grow up.
There's a scene from the movie Braveheart that would have illustrated the point here. In it, the character William Wallace says something like this:
Interesting that this playlist of video clips doesn't have this scene. I can't find it. Too bad, because it is powerful. Like so many things, the point gets buried under a sea of irrelevancies.
Excerpts:
- The Walker reforms hurt AFSCME in Wisconsin almost as badly as Ronald Reagan hurt PATCO, the air traffic controller union he famously crushed in 1981.
- Two big things unite them: a general sense of being on the same side in opposition to the economic and social right, and the belief in a strong, well-funded state.[ comment: the left is self serving, not serving the larger purposes, but only themselves]
- But the dominance of the public unions in the left had consequences for the left itself — bad ones.
- To the extent that these unions shape the Democratic agenda, Democrats aren’t just the party of government; they are the party of inefficient, expensive, unresponsive, bureaucratic government.
- The left’s analysis of its loss in Wisconsin resorts to some classic tropes
- the American people are really so stupid and clueless that they docilely follow the big bucks[ comment: they are blaming others for their own failure--- does this appear familiar?]
- The left lost this election because it failed to persuade the people that its analysis was correct.
- We need a new future because the old one has turned into the past.
- And the lesson of the election isn’t that the right has too much money; the lesson is that while the left still has plenty of passion and fire, it has, thanks in part to the power of public sector unions, largely run out of compelling ideas.
Blame everyone but themselves. Assume that the whole world revolves around them and them alone. The left is infantile. They need to grow up.
There's a scene from the movie Braveheart that would have illustrated the point here. In it, the character William Wallace says something like this:
There's a difference between us. You think the people exist to provide you with possession. I think that your possession exists to provide the people with freedom. And I go to see that they have it.
Interesting that this playlist of video clips doesn't have this scene. I can't find it. Too bad, because it is powerful. Like so many things, the point gets buried under a sea of irrelevancies.
Morning Jay: Why Wisconsin Matters
Morning Jay: Why Wisconsin Matters
Comment:
Democrats like to say that they are the party for the little guy, but it is funny how so many "big guys" seemed to be attracted to it.
- the interest of the public sector unions is not in growing the private economy, but of socializing an ever-greater portion of the national wealth.
- the Democratic party has gone from being the party that utilized government to help the little guy, to just being the party of government
- labor unions are an artifact of an age long gone, and they remain in existence today due in part to the political needs of the Democratic party
Comment:
Democrats like to say that they are the party for the little guy, but it is funny how so many "big guys" seemed to be attracted to it.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
A thoughtful observation on the current political scene
Check this out. Well worth the read.
Excellent.
Update a short while later...
The author doesn't predict the outcome of this conflict. Whatever the outcome, there has to be a re-balancing of income and spending. You can't build an economy that runs strictly on debt. You can't just print money and expect to prosper. Spending has to be paid for somehow and the only way to do that is to grow the economy. Just raising taxes to confiscatory rates will do nothing to generate new growth. That's the bottom line.
- The conflict today between Democrats and Republicans increasingly pits public sector unions, government employees and contractors, and beneficiaries of government programs against middle-class taxpayers and business interests large and small. In states where public spending is high and public sector unions are strong, as in New York, California, Illinois, and Connecticut, Democrats have gained control; where public sector interests are weak or poorly organized, as in most of the states across the south and southwest, Republicans have the edge. This configuration, when added up across the nation, has produced a series of electoral stand-offs in recent decades between the red and blue states that have been decided by a handful of swing states moving in one direction or the other.
- The regime of public spending has at last drawn so many groups into the public arena in search of public dollars that it has paralyzed the political process and driven governments to the edge of bankruptcy. These groups are widely varied: trade associations, educational lobbies, public employee unions, government contractors, ideological and advocacy organizations, health-care providers, hospital associations that earn revenues from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the like. These are what economists call rent-seeking groups because they are concerned with the distribution of resources rather than with the creation of wealth. They consume rather than create wealth. These groups are highly influential in the political process because they are willing to invest large sums in lobbying and election campaigns in order to protect their sources of income. While rent-seeking groups can be found in both political parties, the largest and most influential of them (at least on the spending side) have congregated within the Democratic Party. To expand on what was said earlier, one might describe the Democratic Party as a coalition of rent-seekers. [ emphasis added]
- This would be the ultimate challenge for a political regime organized around public spending and debt. It would immediately lead to a highly charged political situation in which incumbents are voted out of office, interest groups battle to protect their pieces of the budget, and the political parties struggle to keep their electoral coalitions intact.
- Despite all this, President Obama is unshaken in his presumption that he is a herald of a new era, a revolutionary on the models of Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR. But is it possible that he will instead turn out to be something much different, a modern day Adams, Buchanan, or Hoover—that is, the last representative of a disintegrating order? Such a denouement is not only possible but, in view of our situation, more and more likely.
Excellent.
Update a short while later...
The author doesn't predict the outcome of this conflict. Whatever the outcome, there has to be a re-balancing of income and spending. You can't build an economy that runs strictly on debt. You can't just print money and expect to prosper. Spending has to be paid for somehow and the only way to do that is to grow the economy. Just raising taxes to confiscatory rates will do nothing to generate new growth. That's the bottom line.
Pundit Press: Breaking: Liberals Plan to Assassinate Walker: 'I ...
Pundit Press: Breaking: Liberals Plan to Assassinate Walker: 'I ...: In light of the crushing victory Scott Walker had tonight, liberals are returning to their normal civility: calling for his murder and promi...
Comment:
Gabriel Giffords gets shot in Arizona and we get lectured about a climate of hate. Walker wins and those who can't accept the outcome want to assassinate him. Now, what was that again, Mr. Krugman?
Comment:
Gabriel Giffords gets shot in Arizona and we get lectured about a climate of hate. Walker wins and those who can't accept the outcome want to assassinate him. Now, what was that again, Mr. Krugman?
Walker wins in Wisconsin
Yes, and the sun will rise in the morning. The point is that it wasn't even all that close. Nothing much changed since his election a little over a year and a half ago. He actually won by a little more this time than last time. So, why did this seem so much in doubt?
That may be a good question-- meaning that there isn't any clear answer to it. Something like the fog of war.
If nothing really changed in Wisconsin, then the recall should be seen as nothing more than a nuisance provoked by people who could not accept the consequences of their defeat.
That may be a good question-- meaning that there isn't any clear answer to it. Something like the fog of war.
If nothing really changed in Wisconsin, then the recall should be seen as nothing more than a nuisance provoked by people who could not accept the consequences of their defeat.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
UP OR DOWN?
That's the choice before us. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan-- We can rise up to the ultimate of freedom consistent with order in a civilized society, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
Who were the Luddites?
It may be a good idea to visit that topic. The term gets used a lot, and I'd like to know what it means- exactly.
You can swallow the red pill or the blue one. If you swallow the red one, you want to know. That is the path of knowledge. The path of ignorance is to swallow the blue pill. Then you can believe whatever you want to believe- you'll substitute your beliefs for actual knowledge. But you will be ignorant, just the same. The blue pill may be seen as the easy way out, hence its attractiveness. The red pill may be seen as the hard way, and it might scare off most people.
Anything new is frightening. But it may be no easier or harder than what already exists. You only exchange one set of problems with another. Problems will always exist. Problems are good. The only people with no problems are the ones in graveyards. If you have a problem, it means you are alive.
You can swallow the red pill or the blue one. If you swallow the red one, you want to know. That is the path of knowledge. The path of ignorance is to swallow the blue pill. Then you can believe whatever you want to believe- you'll substitute your beliefs for actual knowledge. But you will be ignorant, just the same. The blue pill may be seen as the easy way out, hence its attractiveness. The red pill may be seen as the hard way, and it might scare off most people.
Anything new is frightening. But it may be no easier or harder than what already exists. You only exchange one set of problems with another. Problems will always exist. Problems are good. The only people with no problems are the ones in graveyards. If you have a problem, it means you are alive.
Next Big Future: A Prediction of nuclear power in Australia by 2030...
Next Big Future: A Prediction of nuclear power in Australia by 2030...: Professor Barry Brook, University of Adelaide scientist, believes it is inevitable that Australia will become a user of the world's most adv...
Comment:
If reason prevails, they will turn to LFTRs. But reason may not prevail.
The comments section seemed to get that point. There's a Luddite War against Energy proceeding apace. It is anti reason, anti science, and anti intellectual. It is self destructive and it will take everyone and everything down with it if it succeeds. All science is is knowledge as Bronowski warned. Warfare is all about deception, so knowledge is being attacked in the name of science. That is the great deception.
Comment:
If reason prevails, they will turn to LFTRs. But reason may not prevail.
The comments section seemed to get that point. There's a Luddite War against Energy proceeding apace. It is anti reason, anti science, and anti intellectual. It is self destructive and it will take everyone and everything down with it if it succeeds. All science is is knowledge as Bronowski warned. Warfare is all about deception, so knowledge is being attacked in the name of science. That is the great deception.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Obama's War on Coal
Top EPA Official: Obama Coal Regulations Will Be “Painful Every Step of the Way” As They Destroy Communities That Depend On Coal
Obama's all of the above energy strategy? He's pulling your leg. He's full of it.
Obama's all of the above energy strategy? He's pulling your leg. He's full of it.
I've got a bad feeling about this
This kind of thing is getting out of hand. By the way, the title of the post is a line from the Star Wars franchise.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Can Thorium Power Our World?
Answer: It already is.
Thorium is the greenest energy there is.
If you don't like radioactivity, the Earth is no place to live. One might be surprised to learn what is radioactive. Stuff not usually considered radioactive actually is radioactive. Pepto Bismol anyone?
Sorensen is a self described nuclear hacker. It's how things really happen in the real world.
Thorium is the greenest energy there is.
If you don't like radioactivity, the Earth is no place to live. One might be surprised to learn what is radioactive. Stuff not usually considered radioactive actually is radioactive. Pepto Bismol anyone?
Sorensen is a self described nuclear hacker. It's how things really happen in the real world.
Red pill or blue pill?
That was the choice placed before the character "Neo" in The Matrix. Morpheus says "all I'm offering is the truth, and nothing more." I think the blue and red pills are symbolic of denial and acceptance of reality. It is an artful way of showing something that is applicable in real life. Reality and denial are not just words and these concepts are not mere props in a movie.
No, please do not misunderstand. I'm not claiming we are all living in The Matrix. But I do believe we are all living in massive denial. Morpheus is but a character in a movie who does know something that he wants to show. But we are not living the movie. This is real life, so what is the truth?
The real trick is finding out what the truth is because it isn't so easy to know who is deceiving you and who is not. But somebody is.
I have something in mind that sparked these thoughts. Go to Barnhardt's website and see if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Again, all it is but an attempt to see reality for what it is. You have to decide whatever it is that you want to believe.
No, please do not misunderstand. I'm not claiming we are all living in The Matrix. But I do believe we are all living in massive denial. Morpheus is but a character in a movie who does know something that he wants to show. But we are not living the movie. This is real life, so what is the truth?
The real trick is finding out what the truth is because it isn't so easy to know who is deceiving you and who is not. But somebody is.
I have something in mind that sparked these thoughts. Go to Barnhardt's website and see if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Again, all it is but an attempt to see reality for what it is. You have to decide whatever it is that you want to believe.
Is Mark Steyn right or is he wrong?
Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds doesn't agree with Steyn.
Steyn says:
I think Steyn is recognizing the problems and has come up with the conclusion that they are not solvable. Reynolds must think the problems are solvable.
The problems can't be solved if their existence is denied. The people who tell us global warming is caused by man are the same ones who are saddling us with an impossible debt.
So who's doing the bad thinking, the so called right, or the left?
Steyn says:
Look around you. The late-20th-century Western lifestyle isn’t going to be around much longer. In a few years’ time, our children will look at old TV commercials showing retirees dancing, golfing, cruising away their sixties and seventies, and wonder what alternative universe that came from. In turn, their children will be amazed to discover that in the early 21st century the Western world thought it entirely normal that vast swathes of the citizenry should while away their youth enjoying what, a mere hundred years earlier, would have been the leisurely varsity of the younger son of a Mitteleuropean Grand Duke.
I think Steyn is recognizing the problems and has come up with the conclusion that they are not solvable. Reynolds must think the problems are solvable.
The problems can't be solved if their existence is denied. The people who tell us global warming is caused by man are the same ones who are saddling us with an impossible debt.
So who's doing the bad thinking, the so called right, or the left?
ScienceShot: What Struck Earth in 775?
ScienceNOW
Carbon 14 is taken up by living things. It is in everybody's bodies. Radioactivity is a fact of nature.
An analysis of the rings of two Japanese cedar trees (typical tree rings shown above), reported online today in Nature, reveals that from 774 to 775 C.E., the atmospheric level of radioactive carbon-14 jumped by 1.2%. This indicates that cosmic rays—high-speed, charged particles from space—bombarded our planet and converted some atmospheric nitrogen-14 into carbon-14.
Carbon 14 is taken up by living things. It is in everybody's bodies. Radioactivity is a fact of nature.
Good thinking v. Bad Thinking
The history of the nuclear power industry is a prime example of what can happen because of bad thinking. But it was good thinking that first brought it into existence.
So, in this context, what is meant by good thinking and bad thinking? I've included a link here for a course in learning how to do good thinking. I have a hunch that Einstein and others knew how to think well, and their manner of thinking was similar to what is in the link here.
But what is bad thinking? Here's a video that may counter the information about good thinking. This gives a general sense of what good thinking is and bad thinking is. But how does this relate to the nuclear power industry?
It should be obvious, I would think. Bad thinking leads to bad outcomes, does it not? A simple mistake is not necessarily bad thinking per se, but a series of mistakes that follows a pattern would be a good example of bad thinking.
Light water reactors have flaws in the design. That should be obvious by now. But it is to be expected that people will make mistakes. From these mistakes, you can learn and improve. Good thinking means learning from mistakes and improving. Bad thinking is overreacting to a the consequences of a mistake and refusing to learn from it and making yet another mistake.
A molten salt reactor is a better design, but it was overlooked and ignored. That was the mistake. It would simply be yet another mistake to say that all reactors are unsafe and all radioactivity is bad. To say something like that is ignoring the reality of radioactivity in the natural environment. You can't get away from it.
It is like the discovering fire and saying that because fires can kill that all fires are bad and must be avoided at all times. Obviously, that is bad thinking. If you refused to use fire because it may hurt you, then you will have done more harm to yourself than what you may gain by avoiding it. Where would you be without using fire? The same is true about radioactivity. The significance of radioactivity is the same as the significance of fire for mankind. Both are potentially dangerous. But both can do amazing things to improve the lives of people.
If you would think of it this way: radioactivity is just like fire, but much more powerful. It is a fact of nature just as fire is. Learning how to use it safely is a great advantage. Ignoring its advantages is just bad thinking. Learning how to use it safely is good thinking.
Nuclear power is a million times more powerful than chemical energy. Fire is nothing more than chemical energy. If fire is good, then radioactivity must be really, really good. If nuclear energy is bad, then fire is bad.
But neither are bad. They are what they are. It is what people do with these things that make them good or bad. These phenomena mean power. Power can be abused. But it is people who do the bad things. The thing itself is neither good nor bad.
So, in this context, what is meant by good thinking and bad thinking? I've included a link here for a course in learning how to do good thinking. I have a hunch that Einstein and others knew how to think well, and their manner of thinking was similar to what is in the link here.
But what is bad thinking? Here's a video that may counter the information about good thinking. This gives a general sense of what good thinking is and bad thinking is. But how does this relate to the nuclear power industry?
It should be obvious, I would think. Bad thinking leads to bad outcomes, does it not? A simple mistake is not necessarily bad thinking per se, but a series of mistakes that follows a pattern would be a good example of bad thinking.
Light water reactors have flaws in the design. That should be obvious by now. But it is to be expected that people will make mistakes. From these mistakes, you can learn and improve. Good thinking means learning from mistakes and improving. Bad thinking is overreacting to a the consequences of a mistake and refusing to learn from it and making yet another mistake.
A molten salt reactor is a better design, but it was overlooked and ignored. That was the mistake. It would simply be yet another mistake to say that all reactors are unsafe and all radioactivity is bad. To say something like that is ignoring the reality of radioactivity in the natural environment. You can't get away from it.
It is like the discovering fire and saying that because fires can kill that all fires are bad and must be avoided at all times. Obviously, that is bad thinking. If you refused to use fire because it may hurt you, then you will have done more harm to yourself than what you may gain by avoiding it. Where would you be without using fire? The same is true about radioactivity. The significance of radioactivity is the same as the significance of fire for mankind. Both are potentially dangerous. But both can do amazing things to improve the lives of people.
If you would think of it this way: radioactivity is just like fire, but much more powerful. It is a fact of nature just as fire is. Learning how to use it safely is a great advantage. Ignoring its advantages is just bad thinking. Learning how to use it safely is good thinking.
Nuclear power is a million times more powerful than chemical energy. Fire is nothing more than chemical energy. If fire is good, then radioactivity must be really, really good. If nuclear energy is bad, then fire is bad.
But neither are bad. They are what they are. It is what people do with these things that make them good or bad. These phenomena mean power. Power can be abused. But it is people who do the bad things. The thing itself is neither good nor bad.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Bronowski probably would have approved of the LFTR
Bronowski was a friend of Leó Szilárd, who was Eugene Wigner's closest friend. Szilárd was a collaborator and friend of Einstein, who convinced FDR to approve the Manhattan Project. According to Kirk Sorensen, without Wigner, the Manhattan Project may not have been successful. Wigner believed the molten salt reactor was a better design than the solid fuel reactor. In other words, Wigner was a pretty smart guy and knew the smartest people in the world at that time. It is therefore not a stretch to see how this type of reactor would have met Bronowski's approval. In fact, the ending of the Molten Salt Reactor Program at Oak Ridge occurred just before Bronowski's death. This may have been one of the factors, along with the end of the Apollo Program, that led to his warning.
Here's Sorensen discussing his history and the history of the Molten Salt Reactor. The relevant parts here were discussed in the first 30 minutes of the video.
Update:
Kardashevian Aspirations: Thorium Energy Alliance: A short update on that post recently, which has some actionable material in it, just in case you wanted to, you know, DO SOMETHING. Well, ...
Seaborg and Weinberg are in this post along with Pres Kennedy. Weinberg invented the light water reactor and the molten salt reactor. He was fired for expressing concerns about safety of the light water reactors, and was a strong advocate of the molten salt reactors. The molten salt reactor technology was forgotten.
It was Wigner who sold Weinberg on the idea of the molten salt reactors. What this means is that the finest scientific minds wanted this technology to succeed because they recognized the significance of its advantages, and the need for the benefits of this technology.
Here's Sorensen discussing his history and the history of the Molten Salt Reactor. The relevant parts here were discussed in the first 30 minutes of the video.
Update:
Kardashevian Aspirations: Thorium Energy Alliance: A short update on that post recently, which has some actionable material in it, just in case you wanted to, you know, DO SOMETHING. Well, ...
Seaborg and Weinberg are in this post along with Pres Kennedy. Weinberg invented the light water reactor and the molten salt reactor. He was fired for expressing concerns about safety of the light water reactors, and was a strong advocate of the molten salt reactors. The molten salt reactor technology was forgotten.
It was Wigner who sold Weinberg on the idea of the molten salt reactors. What this means is that the finest scientific minds wanted this technology to succeed because they recognized the significance of its advantages, and the need for the benefits of this technology.
Island hopping or hitting them where they ain't
Island hopping was a World War II naval strategy employed against the Japanese Imperial Navy. It was meant to complement the overall strategy of defeating the Nazis first because they were judged to be the more difficult opponent. Jeff Greason mentioned the need for a strategy in a talk with respect to our approach to space. America sort of has a goal with respect to space, but there is no strategy- nothing like Island hopping strategy of World War II.
The goal is softly spoken if at all and that goal with respect to space is to settle it. But this post isn't about war, or about space, but about nuclear energy. In particular, LFTRs and how it may be possible to overcome the resistance to the idea, and how these may be implemented as soon as possible. To do that requires a strategy.
A strategy may exist for implementing the LFTR. The main player here is Kirk Sorensen, and his new company called Flibe Energy. From what I can gather, his idea is to go to the military and get some contracts there. He's going where the anti-nukes have the least power to oppose him. He's hitting them where they ain't. And that may be the path of least resistance. Perhaps it is akin to the Island hopping strategy.
Overall, this is a good idea. Trying to go against an established industry is like taking on the Imperial Navy with all your ships sunk and at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But how to implement this strategy in the nuclear context in a broader "front"? Military applications provide rather narrow opportunities.
And persuasion is a hard job. Education takes a long time.
You may have a lot of trouble trying to persuade people who are hostile to you from the get go. It would be like going to enemy and trying to make a treaty while the war is raging on. The enemy may be in no mood to parley if they are doing really well. If they start losing, they may be more inclined to begin negotiations.
The "enemy" has the high ground as of the moment due to the Fukushima disaster. They may be believe that their position is so strong that there is little reason to discuss the matter any further. But there is a saying that you should quit while you are ahead. If the anti-nukes press their advantage too hard, they may end up with only a won battle, but a lost war.
On the other hand, it would be foolhardy not to recognize the issues. The anti-nukes have won a point. Nuclear energy is not to be taken lightly. Yet they are pressing the issue too far if they attempt to go for all out victory and a total ban on nuclear energy. It may wise of them to consider a negotiation with their concerns being fully addressed to their satisfaction. If that is not possible, then perhaps a reasonable compromise. That's the rub, because reasonable is one of those slippery words that seem to get defined according to
ones own satisfaction- but not your adversary's.
Sorensen has done a great job showing all the advantages of LFTRs. But there may not be enough discussion dedicated to the downside of this technology. That's because nothing made by man is perfect. Every technology will have a downside of some kind. Every energy strategy will incur a certain risk. Although the risks are small with LFTRs, it cannot be said that the risks are zero. There is some risk. But as best as I can determine, the risks are small and manageable. The rewards far exceed the risks which makes this a worthwhile project.
But the risks associated with solar and wind seem to be relatively mild. This looks like a risk free option. But is it? One risk that has to be faced is that wind and solar just aren't going to be as cheap as fossil fuels. Even if you get the prices down to where they are competitive, you are going to need more installed capacity because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. This will add to costs. So, the actual cost of wind and solar have to be superior to fossil fuels and that doesn't seem to be likely soon, if at all. Those who choose wind and solar will have the added costs of that option tacked onto the usual costs of doing business. This will give them a competitive disadvantage.
You can argue that risks for wind and solar don't exist or can be managed. But you can say the same with nuclear energy. But the LFTRs are even cheaper than coal, so the economic advantage shifts to LFTRs. This is how the anti-nukes can lose the war. In a world that is hungry for energy, an energy strategy that is too economically limiting is going to have to face those difficult and stubborn facts. Another one of these facts is that solar and wind take up too much land area. This can conflict with certain other environmental goals, such as preserving habitat. The disadvantages of solar and wind can start to appear rather daunting when it doesn't even meet all the goals of green policy- and even conflicts with it at times.
The anti-nukes have won a battle. But not the war. One way or another, the world's energy needs will have to be met. If they insist upon a total ban on nuclear energy, their victory will be short lived. Their concerns will be better served if they listen to what Sorensen has to say. His ideas can be very useful for implementing significant portions of green policies- while limiting the downside. He has reasonably addressed most, if not all of their concerns. If the anti-nukes will admit this and get with the LFTR program, they'll be doing themselves a favor. They should quit while they are ahead.
There should be those who support green policies who can also agree that LFTRs are a good choice and should be implemented. They should not let themselves go down with the extremist's ship. Those who are not onboard the LFTR ship should get on now. LFTR can do everything that solar and wind can do and do it even better. The risk is that the will get outflanked and their "ship" will be sunk. Therefore, they should convince their friends to get onboard too assuming that they care about the environment. If that happens, you can have a broader front to take on the fossil fuel industry and to beat it.
Joining the anti-nuke extremists may actually play into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. One thing that the oil industry doesn't want is a viable competitor. One thing that they really like is to be able to charge as much as they can for their products. You want them to have to compete. You want to have choices so they don't have you over the energy barrel. You want an alternative that's really an alternative. You should want the LFTR. It's good economics. It's good for the environment. The risks are small and manageable. The risks of the status quo are getting worse all the time.
The goal is softly spoken if at all and that goal with respect to space is to settle it. But this post isn't about war, or about space, but about nuclear energy. In particular, LFTRs and how it may be possible to overcome the resistance to the idea, and how these may be implemented as soon as possible. To do that requires a strategy.
A strategy may exist for implementing the LFTR. The main player here is Kirk Sorensen, and his new company called Flibe Energy. From what I can gather, his idea is to go to the military and get some contracts there. He's going where the anti-nukes have the least power to oppose him. He's hitting them where they ain't. And that may be the path of least resistance. Perhaps it is akin to the Island hopping strategy.
Overall, this is a good idea. Trying to go against an established industry is like taking on the Imperial Navy with all your ships sunk and at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But how to implement this strategy in the nuclear context in a broader "front"? Military applications provide rather narrow opportunities.
And persuasion is a hard job. Education takes a long time.
You may have a lot of trouble trying to persuade people who are hostile to you from the get go. It would be like going to enemy and trying to make a treaty while the war is raging on. The enemy may be in no mood to parley if they are doing really well. If they start losing, they may be more inclined to begin negotiations.
The "enemy" has the high ground as of the moment due to the Fukushima disaster. They may be believe that their position is so strong that there is little reason to discuss the matter any further. But there is a saying that you should quit while you are ahead. If the anti-nukes press their advantage too hard, they may end up with only a won battle, but a lost war.
On the other hand, it would be foolhardy not to recognize the issues. The anti-nukes have won a point. Nuclear energy is not to be taken lightly. Yet they are pressing the issue too far if they attempt to go for all out victory and a total ban on nuclear energy. It may wise of them to consider a negotiation with their concerns being fully addressed to their satisfaction. If that is not possible, then perhaps a reasonable compromise. That's the rub, because reasonable is one of those slippery words that seem to get defined according to
ones own satisfaction- but not your adversary's.
Sorensen has done a great job showing all the advantages of LFTRs. But there may not be enough discussion dedicated to the downside of this technology. That's because nothing made by man is perfect. Every technology will have a downside of some kind. Every energy strategy will incur a certain risk. Although the risks are small with LFTRs, it cannot be said that the risks are zero. There is some risk. But as best as I can determine, the risks are small and manageable. The rewards far exceed the risks which makes this a worthwhile project.
But the risks associated with solar and wind seem to be relatively mild. This looks like a risk free option. But is it? One risk that has to be faced is that wind and solar just aren't going to be as cheap as fossil fuels. Even if you get the prices down to where they are competitive, you are going to need more installed capacity because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. This will add to costs. So, the actual cost of wind and solar have to be superior to fossil fuels and that doesn't seem to be likely soon, if at all. Those who choose wind and solar will have the added costs of that option tacked onto the usual costs of doing business. This will give them a competitive disadvantage.
You can argue that risks for wind and solar don't exist or can be managed. But you can say the same with nuclear energy. But the LFTRs are even cheaper than coal, so the economic advantage shifts to LFTRs. This is how the anti-nukes can lose the war. In a world that is hungry for energy, an energy strategy that is too economically limiting is going to have to face those difficult and stubborn facts. Another one of these facts is that solar and wind take up too much land area. This can conflict with certain other environmental goals, such as preserving habitat. The disadvantages of solar and wind can start to appear rather daunting when it doesn't even meet all the goals of green policy- and even conflicts with it at times.
The anti-nukes have won a battle. But not the war. One way or another, the world's energy needs will have to be met. If they insist upon a total ban on nuclear energy, their victory will be short lived. Their concerns will be better served if they listen to what Sorensen has to say. His ideas can be very useful for implementing significant portions of green policies- while limiting the downside. He has reasonably addressed most, if not all of their concerns. If the anti-nukes will admit this and get with the LFTR program, they'll be doing themselves a favor. They should quit while they are ahead.
There should be those who support green policies who can also agree that LFTRs are a good choice and should be implemented. They should not let themselves go down with the extremist's ship. Those who are not onboard the LFTR ship should get on now. LFTR can do everything that solar and wind can do and do it even better. The risk is that the will get outflanked and their "ship" will be sunk. Therefore, they should convince their friends to get onboard too assuming that they care about the environment. If that happens, you can have a broader front to take on the fossil fuel industry and to beat it.
Joining the anti-nuke extremists may actually play into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. One thing that the oil industry doesn't want is a viable competitor. One thing that they really like is to be able to charge as much as they can for their products. You want them to have to compete. You want to have choices so they don't have you over the energy barrel. You want an alternative that's really an alternative. You should want the LFTR. It's good economics. It's good for the environment. The risks are small and manageable. The risks of the status quo are getting worse all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)