I recently saw a contemporary video about how molten salt nuclear fission is much less risky in terms of meltdowns (not possible) and waste (much more manageable, and some waste products even being useful), and that this now seemingly abandoned method of nuclear energy might be the answer to many of our energy problems today. Does anyone know more about this? Is it a better alternative indeed? This video is a bit too technical for me, but I'd still like to think that this is a forgotten method of generating energy that might save us from completely wrecking the climate...

Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

http://creation.com/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals

And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.

Read the above link.

You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth

Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists, does that make all of their claims valid?

You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.

You said there was no persecution today, but in fact there is quite a bit. Christianity is illegal in 51 countries. It's almost getting to the point in America where sharing your faith might become a civil rights issue.

And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

God says what is true about you and me, and that's all that matters.

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism



And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.


You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth


You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.


And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

>> ^lampishthing:

Does anyone else disagree with the characterisation of nuclear (fission) power as renewable?
I'm still for it but that annoys me.
Also, I'd like to see costs. I was always under the impression that nuclear power was cheaper.


Seeing as how much there is, it is quite renewable:

How long can Uranium last for nuclear power ? 5 billion years at double current world electricity usage.

Breeder reactors can transmute non-fissile Uranium to fissile Uranium. So that means you can burn up almost all the Uranium. This includes all the so called nuclear waste. This can also be burnt in a similar process, leaving you with virtually no waste.

Does anyone else disagree with the characterisation of nuclear (fission) power as renewable?

I'm still for it but that annoys me.

Also, I'd like to see costs. I was always under the impression that nuclear power was cheaper.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?


Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.

Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.

The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.

If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?
>> ^Psychologic:
Fusion has some great advantages, especially in the power-per-area department, but I still like solar better for a few reasons.
Fusion is an "all or nothing" tech. It takes a very large investment up front before anything significant can be done with it. Solar, on the other hand, is more of an evolutionary process. It already works, so the main goal is lowering cost and increasing efficiency (which is happening pretty quickly these days).
However, I think one of the largest advantages solar has over fusion is that it doesn't require a power grid. Once the cost and efficiency reach a certain level then you can create your own power, which will be huge in remote low-income areas. Villages wouldn't have to wait for their region to invest in a reactor or worry about power distribution being damaged.
Fusion is great and will greatly benefit the world, but I don't think it's our best option at this point.

please, help these poor videos escape the queue

http://www.videosift.com/video/Mulatu-Astatqe-Yekermo-Sew
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawn-Penn-You-Don-t-Love-Me
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dj-Mujava-Township-Funk
http://www.videosift.com/video/Brandon-Hardesty-Re-Enactment-Network
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Wheeler-Pioneer-of-Nuclear-Fission-Quantum-gravity
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fucking-robots-yeah-someone-made-some
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Rubber-Boy

Its worth noting that Elena Filatova
is something of a huckster. She took the same tour that everyone else who goes there does. I think you're correct that nuclear fission in the way that we currently use it is not a perfect and limitless power source. But that's because we don't reprocess, we only use 5% of the energy in the enriched U235/U238 mixture that is present. If we reprocessed fuel and used non-proliferative breeder reactors, we could get many many times the amount of energy out of each pound of uranium that we do now. The amount of energy gleaned from a pound of U238 would be really vast. In any case we should be thinking of fission as a stopgap measure to be used only until we master fusion power, a totally safe form of nuclear power. The energy reserves of that power source are utterly staggering, a bathtub full of heavy water and a pinch of lithium no larger than that found in a laptop battery could EASILY power your entire modern lifestyle for the next 30 years. Plus, you can use fusion reactors to "burn" radioactive waste from fission plants into harmless non-radioactive elements. This is called an actinide burner.

There's nothing free about it, ren - I don't know how much it takes to take an ad out in the Economist but I guarantee it's more than a bag of crisps.

Which leaves me asking the same question as you - what would be their possible motive to lie about this (assuming they're not just confused about what they've done)?

Stories of these kind of devices have been turning up on the internets every so often for years now, and they're usually followed by a HTTP 404 or a claim that 'the yakuza stole the technology'.

Still, this does seem like a fairly audacious move. And they're not claiming to violate the principle of conservation of energy. Strictly speaking, a windmill has a coefficient of performance > 1.0, and a century ago nuclear fission would have been thought of as free energy, just because we wouldn't have been able to explain where the energy was coming from. So I'm prepared to reserve judgment until the results come in - maybe they've found a way to tap zero point energy or something exotic like that.