*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #160 on: June 08, 2014, 12:12:10 PM »
Meanwhile, nuclear power plants (the resolution of all our problems, our energetic lord and saviour) are being slammed down by the very same people who consider moving away from coal a priority.

but what if we get chernobyl'd? Who will save us when all the nuclear plants meltup? WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
As we have proven in another thread: The kids ain't all right.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #161 on: June 08, 2014, 12:27:07 PM »
Meanwhile, nuclear power plants (the resolution of all our problems, our energetic lord and saviour) are being slammed down by the very same people who consider moving away from coal a priority.

[off topic]

And ironically its often the same people that complain about wind farms. Wind farms are good, just not in my backyard.

If you want a fucking iPod then you get a fucking wind farm. Now make a choice fucknuts.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #162 on: June 08, 2014, 02:55:59 PM »
Meanwhile, nuclear power plants (the resolution of all our problems, our energetic lord and saviour) ...
Incorrect.  Geothermal is the highly underrated solution to all of our problems.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #163 on: June 08, 2014, 03:17:37 PM »
Meanwhile, nuclear power plants (the resolution of all our problems, our energetic lord and saviour) ...
Incorrect.  Geothermal is the highly underrated solution to all of our problems.

Geothermal plants can only be placed in very specific locations and don't produce nearly as much electricity as a nuclear plant.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #164 on: June 08, 2014, 03:34:56 PM »
Geothermal plants can only be placed in very specific locations and don't produce nearly as much electricity as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants can only placed in very specific locations. Mainly due to fear rather than an environmental need. But still.

Thork

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #165 on: June 08, 2014, 11:28:30 PM »
Nuclear plants can only placed in very specific locations. Mainly due to fear rather than an environmental need. But still.
False. Nuclear plants will grow almost anywhere.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #166 on: June 09, 2014, 12:23:47 AM »
Thorium Reactors are the future.  They are relatively cheap, very safe, and have a high output of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Offline Shmeggley

  • *
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #167 on: June 09, 2014, 01:26:10 AM »
Thorium Reactors are the future.  They are relatively cheap, very safe, and have a high output of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Also very difficult to weaponize. And Thorium is much more abundant that Uranium and if I remember right, it's easier to refine. We have the technology, we have the Thorium; why we aren't using them is beyond me.

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #168 on: June 09, 2014, 04:01:40 AM »
Also very difficult to weaponize. And Thorium is much more abundant that Uranium and if I remember right, it's easier to refine. We have the technology, we have the Thorium; why we aren't using them is beyond me.

Probably because liquid fluoride salt corrodes and eats through all known types of shielding for reactors. Other reasons are found in, funnily enough, the very link jroa provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #169 on: June 09, 2014, 12:31:27 PM »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Shmeggley

  • *
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #170 on: June 09, 2014, 07:21:47 PM »
Thorium Reactors are the future.  They are relatively cheap, very safe, and have a high output of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Also very difficult to weaponize.
Incorrect.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/nuclear-weapons-suddenly-easier-with-wonder-fuel/

Blast the oily hides of the anti-Thorium conspiracy and their insidious propoganda.  >:(

Seriously though, that's news to me. What a bummer. Though it was never the case that Thorium had no proliferation risk at all. I wonder how it compares to U-235 reactors.

Offline Shmeggley

  • *
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #171 on: June 09, 2014, 07:31:44 PM »
Also very difficult to weaponize. And Thorium is much more abundant that Uranium and if I remember right, it's easier to refine. We have the technology, we have the Thorium; why we aren't using them is beyond me.

Probably because liquid fluoride salt corrodes and eats through all known types of shielding for reactors. Other reasons are found in, funnily enough, the very link jroa provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

Obviously a solution to this exists since there have been working Thorium reactors. The fact remains that despite the engineering hurdles, Thorium still has clear advantages (also listed in that same article, funnily enough) possibly the most important of which is safety, which I expect is most people's first concern when it comes to typical nuclear reactors.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #172 on: June 09, 2014, 07:33:57 PM »
safety, which I expect is most people's first concern when it comes to typical nuclear reactors.
An entirely unfounded one (given that it's 2014 and not 1986), but yes, it sadly is one.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #173 on: June 09, 2014, 07:38:53 PM »
From what I understand, some Thorium reactor designs are essentially breeder reactors and breeder reactors are used to make weapons grade fissionable materials.
Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #174 on: June 09, 2014, 09:30:15 PM »
An entirely unfounded one (given that it's 2014 and not 2011), but yes, it sadly is one.

Fixed.

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #175 on: June 10, 2014, 02:02:57 AM »
Fixed.

That wasn't a problem with the nuclear plant itself, though; Fukushima was hit by a natural disaster.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #176 on: June 10, 2014, 06:19:47 AM »
It also brought no harm to anyone whatsoever. Yes, sometimes shit breaks. We're talking about safety, not hype.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #177 on: June 10, 2014, 09:54:05 AM »
Fixed.

That wasn't a problem with the nuclear plant itself, though; Fukushima was hit by a natural disaster.
Two.  Frankly I'm surprised it sustained as little damage as it did.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #178 on: June 10, 2014, 09:25:00 PM »
Fixed.

That wasn't a problem with the nuclear plant itself, though; Fukushima was hit by a natural disaster.

You are correct because there will never be another natural disaster.

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #179 on: June 10, 2014, 11:04:32 PM »
You are correct because there will never be another natural disaster.

Highways can get destroyed during earthquakes, therefore highways are too dangerous to build. All roads should be dirt roads, because even though dirt roads are less safe and cost more to maintain than highways, they are not as susceptible to earthquakes as highways.


Didn't I say something earlier about getting your head checked? You should really look into it.