Is the sun causing global warming?

Dec 2018
1,705
978
Unionville Indiana
#12
Depends on what the controls are. Are we going to put a carbon tax on beef? That would really make a dent in greenhouse gases. There is a new study that digital's carbon footprint is about to overtake that of cars. Are we going to outlaw youtube or is just allowing companies to throttle sites with big carbon foot prints enough? Are we going to pass a Constitutional amendment that every new mile of road requires the removal of an existing mile of road to help reduce habitat loss?
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), a type of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), as replacements for coal-fired generating power plants are one relatively painless way to take a big chunk out of CO2 emissions. To get the ball rolling, it could take as much as $25 billion in federal support, but that's a tiny fraction of the cost of the $6 trillion Bush/Cheney wars in the Middle East.

Molten Salt Reactors (incl Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) | No CO2, No High Pressure, No Loss of Coolant Accidents, No Long-Term Radioactive Waste

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Likes: hoosier88
May 2019
417
72
USA
#13
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), a type of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), as replacements for coal-fired generating power plants are one relatively painless way to take a big chunk out of CO2 emissions. To get the ball rolling, it could take as much as $25 billion in federal support, but that's a tiny fraction of the cost of the $6 trillion Bush/Cheney wars in the Middle East.

Molten Salt Reactors (incl Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) | No CO2, No High Pressure, No Loss of Coolant Accidents, No Long-Term Radioactive Waste

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia
Most anything that replaces coal is a net carbon gain. Coal is functionally extinct anyway because natural gas is cheaper and most of the plants are reaching the end of their lives anyway since they were built (idiotically) to stop nuclear energy from expanding. So we can build more nuclear reactors and use your MSR's to process the nuclear waste.
 
Dec 2018
1,705
978
Unionville Indiana
#14
Most anything that replaces coal is a net carbon gain. Coal is functionally extinct anyway because natural gas is cheaper and most of the plants are reaching the end of their lives anyway since they were built (idiotically) to stop nuclear energy from expanding. So we can build more nuclear reactors and use your MSR's to process the nuclear waste.
Whatever, but MSRs can supply plenty of power without any forced cutbacks in electrical usage, fracking; as well as process the nuclear waste. I think it's a win/win.
 
May 2019
417
72
USA
#16
Whatever, but MSRs can supply plenty of power without any forced cutbacks in electrical usage, fracking; as well as process the nuclear waste. I think it's a win/win.
They can't supply anything yet. Nuclear can. The fundamental problem at least here in America is that electrical generation is largely in private hands so by the time your technology becomes operational, nobody in the capital markets will want to do it because the costs will be enormous compared to just turning some tobacco field into a solar farm. The government does, however, have to deal with nuclear waste, so the more likely scenario would be to have a limited number of government owned MSR's to run off the nuclear waste and use that electricity to run government owned desalination plants out west if they come to fruition. If not, we can just shoot the nuclear waste into the sun.
 
Dec 2018
1,705
978
Unionville Indiana
#17
They can't supply anything yet.
Ummm...within a few years, MSRs could supply a bundle of electricity with start up money from the Feds, but there's probably no real political will to do so especially among Republicans who love the status quo like no other sector of the electorate. Anyway, we still have to pay off the $6 trillion Bush/Cheney Middle Eastern wars with more tax cuts for the top income brackets. But hey, we got rid of Saddam Hussein, didn't we?

The MSRE operated for 5 years. The salt was loaded in 1964 and nuclear operation ended in December 1969,[3][14] and all the objectives of the experiment were achieved during this period. ... Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
May 2019
417
72
USA
#18
Ummm...within a few years, MSRs could supply a bundle of electricity with start up money from the Feds, but there's probably no real political will to do so especially among Republicans who love the status quo like no other sector of the electorate. Anyway, we still have to pay off the $6 trillion Bush/Cheney Middle Eastern wars.
OIF/OEF are red-herrings. It doesn't matter how much money you pour into it to get to Day 1 of operations. Unless it is a good return on investment, capital will look for better elsewhere. Solar is the low hanging fruit and it is so plentiful, it is going to turn into an energy disaster if the government doesn't stop trying the regulate the winners and losers and take a more proactive ownership role in generation and transmission of electricity. We are in a race to the bottom right now and people don't even see that.
 
Dec 2018
1,705
978
Unionville Indiana
#19
OIF/OEF are red-herrings. It doesn't matter how much money you pour into it to get to Day 1 of operations. Unless it is a good return on investment, capital will look for better elsewhere. Solar is the low hanging fruit and it is so plentiful, it is going to turn into an energy disaster if the government doesn't stop trying the regulate the winners and losers and take a more proactive ownership role in generation and transmission of electricity. We are in a race to the bottom right now and people don't even see that.
The federal budget is no red herring when it comes to the topic of power generation, but I fully understand why you don't want to discuss Bush/Cheney's $6 trillion dollar (and counting) foreign policy blunders. What does government taking a more "proactive ownership role" in the generation and transmission of electricity mean to you?
 
May 2019
417
72
USA
#20
The federal budget is no red herring when it comes to the topic of power generation, but I fully understand why you don't want to discuss Bush/Cheney's $6 trillion dollar (and counting) foreign policy blunders. What does government taking a more "proactive ownership role" in the generation and transmission of electricity mean to you?
Government debt is of no consequence. If the government doesn't acquire the capacity to make affordable for the consumer standby power, eventually the market is going to stop providing it, or at least at a rate the masses can afford.
 

Similar Discussions