If this is for real...

FINALFUCKINGLY!

It always blows my mind that in 2014 with all our technology we still don't have any newer battery technology than lithium ion and nickel cadmium.

*promote

Wait a second...if it's 100% carbon, where are the positively charged lithium ions, and negatively charged anions coming from? Now I'm skeptical too, but I still want to see them in action and for sale.

And if you would like to listen to all these songs in this list on spotify
https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:user:126633862:playlist:6g85gv0Z2sU9Jq1DveZBwR

1. Cannonball - The Breeders
2. The New Pollution - Beck
3. Battle of Who Could Care Less - Ben Folds Five
4. Mrs. Robinson - The Lemonheads
5. Push Th' Little Daisies - Live - Ween, The Shit Creek Boys
6. Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand - Primitive Radio Gods
7. Queer - Garbage
8. Semi-Charmed Life - Third Eye Blind
9. Cut Your Hair (Remastered) - Pavement
10. In The Meantime - Spacehog
11. Undone -- The Sweater Song - Weezer
12. I Alone - Live
13. Got You (Where I Want You) - The Flys
14. One - U2
15. Jeremy - Pearl Jam
16. Stutter - Elastica
17. Not an Addict - K's Choice
18. The Beautiful People - Marilyn Manson
19. You Oughta Know - Alanis Morissette
20. Man In The Box - Alice In Chains
21. Soul To Squeeze - Red Hot Chili Peppers
22. Lithium - Nirvana
23. What's Up - 4 Non Blondes
24. Laid - James
25. Wynona's Big Brown Beaver - Primus
26. The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonite - R.E.M.
27. People Of The Sky - Sloan
28. Good - Better Than Ezra
29. Gel - Collective Soul
30. Zombie - The Cranberries
31. Girls And Boys - Blur
32. Dyslexic Heart - Paul Westerberg
33. Your New Cuckoo - The Cardigans
34. Get Off This - Cracker
35. A Long December- Counting Crows
36. Self Esteem - The Offspring
37. Don't Speak - No Doubt
38. Silently - That Dog

All lithium batteries can do this if hit with a hammer. Break the separator that keeps apart the cathode and anode and it will short circuit, resulting in it trying to release all of its energy at once.

To avoid this, don't hit a charged battery with a hammer.

I've been following Bob Lazar's work for years.

Watch the video - the latter portion is about a solution to the problem described by AeroMechanical.

I do object to use of the term "the law". It would be more accurate (and encouraging) to say "current US federal law" forbid the sale of Lithium-6 deuteride. Moreover, what law exactly? What chapter and section?

So you could do what alot of the hemp growers do. Leave the country, or produce it yourself for your own consumption, or work on changing the laws.

Hey, if you can't sell it, can you give it away for free then accept donations?

Where was this 'clarity' in that 'defense'? Beyond the understandable defense of your punctuation mistake, I didn't see it.
Question...IMLTHO? Does this mean In My Lithium Taking Hilarious Opinion? I've honestly never seen this abbreviation before.
Interesting, so you do understand that YOU are the problem, so much that the sift had to invent an ignore 'button' largely to allow others to ignore you, you just insist on being the problem and forcing the community to 'gang up on poor little you' so you can whine about the unfairness of life and other people? Why? Has no one ever told you that 'poor little bully' isn't a good look?
Wait a second...I thought you were the 'waiting for a chance to fuck with others' robot program...is that why you're mad, someone else is appearing to infringe on your domain?

Might I remind you of a previous chat we had....

newtboy said : ...Or perhaps (and this seems the most likely) you're a feckless and feculent fecal philiac in love with reading your own sophomoric posts.

chingalera said :Guilty an all charges Von Astute and might I add, how refreshing your critique of my lack of forethought when responding to regular fare here....



Newts don't buzz or attack, but we are deadly when bitten. ;-}

Lotta Lithium there as well, and I believe a tungsten deposit er two that ain't tapped-out...Not to mention that sweet, sweet poppy, of which I understand there is a BUMPER crop this year what with all the army guys scootin'-out.

And invest in all countries on this list...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial

This guys points are very valid.
I'd be happy to see a modular standard (like ATX) for notebooks/laptops, but there is none.

Truth is - for portable devices consumers demand them to be smaller, cheaper, and have better battery life. PhoneBloks would be larger, more expensive, and more power hungry than the highly-integrated designs for portable electronics nowadays.

I think a practical starting point would be a standard "socket" for an SoC, which could be upgradeable. The part you keep would be the screen, pcb, antennas, etc. The SoC could itself be an MCM, with multiple stacked layers. You would have to upgrade this "base" once in a while too, but only with release of new wireless standards that work at different frequencies.

Having a standard size & voltage lithium battery for phones would be nice too. Could anyone imagine how much it would suck if AA and AAA batteries didn't exist for other electronics?

I also vote microSDXC as standard for flash storage.

"Have you been injured in an Afghan Lithium mine? Dial 1-800-*Bandito, and let our cheapsuit-wearing, male-pattern-baldness shaved-head, no-rules-reading douche sprocket, get you the cash you deserve!"

Yo Dystop:
My first state of the union address would include costumes, for starters, worn henceforth and according to level of corruption of current members of congress and senate: Data would be of course mined from our resources (those stalwart ass-grabbers of the distinguished intelligence community we have to thank for the dirt we would dredge and release), IMMEDIATELY,!....every phone call, every email every bit of naked boat-parties and teen-aged Thai prettyboys there for all to see…THEN decriminalize all drugs and release all offenders to their respective ends and relatives so charged in the past 100 years, immediately.
I’d make it mandatory that everyone be able to read and write, and provide the necessary means-
Two chickens in every pot
I’d tell everyone the real reason we’re in Afghanistan and will stay the fuck there is for their Lithium, because the world needs batteries to go with the new technology and to go fuck themselves if they don’t like us protecting their poppy fields from angry 4rth century thugs screaming , “AKBAR!”( i.e., I would disclose the actual motivations behind the current clusterfuck..) Oh, I’d have a monthly picnic on the white house lawn holiday, offer federal monies to female athletics, and outlaw fast food chains, billboard advertising, and landlords (I’d work to return ownership of land acquired through unsavory deals by oil-rich cocksuckers, anyone assoc. with any bank scandal in the last 50 years, etc. to the open market for restricted development based on projected models for our world in 50 years)

Just getting started, I’d fuck shit up is the answer to your question, jump-start the place based on the original doc and maybe get another 100 years out of it..

Your video, How To Get Lithium Metal From an Energizer Battery, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 167 Badge!

Isn't lithium kinda worth something?

Safe nuclear refers to many different new gen4 reactor units that rely on passive safety instead of engineered safety. The real difference comes with a slight bit of understanding of how nuclear tech works now, and why that isn't optimal.

Let us first consider this, even with current nuclear technology, the amount of people that have died as a direct and indirect result of nuclear is very low per unit energy produced. The only rival is big hydro, even wind and solar have a great deal of risk compared to nuclear as we do it and have done it for years. The main difference is when a nuclear plant fails, everyone hears about it...but when a oil pipeline explodes and kills dozens, or solar panel installers fall off a roof or get electrocuted and dies...it just isn't as interesting.

Pound per pound nuclear is already statistically very safe, but that isn't really what we are talking about, we are talking about what makes them more unsafe compared to new nuclear techs. Well, that has to do with how normal nukes work. So, firstly, normal reactor tech uses solid fuel rods. It isn't a "metal" either, it is uranium dioxide, has the same physical characteristics as ceramic pots you buy in a store. When the fuel fissions, the uranium is transmuted into other, lighter, elements some of which are gases. Over time, these non-fissile elements damage the fuel rod to the point where it can no longer sustain fission and need to be replaced. At this point, they have only burned about 4% of the uranium content, but they are all "used up". So while there are some highly radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods, the vast majority is just normal uranium, and that isn't very radioactive (you could eat it and not really suffer any radiation effects, now chemical toxicity is a different matter). The vast majority of nuclear waste, as a result of this way of burning uranium, generates huge volumes of waste products that aren't really waste products, just normal uranium.

But this isn't what makes light water reactors unsafe compared to other designs. It is all about the water. Normal reactors use water to both cool the core, extract the heat, and moderate the neutrons to sustain the fission reaction. Water boils at 100c which is far to low a temperature to run a thermal reactor on, you need much higher temps to get power. As a result, nuclear reactors use highly pressurized water to keep it liquid. The pressure is an amazingly high 2200psi or so! This is where the real problem comes in. If pressure is lost catastrophically, the chance to release radioactivity into the environment increases. This is further complicated by the lack of water then cooling the core. Without water, the fission chain reaction that generates the main source of heat in the reactor shuts down, however, the radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods are very unstable and generate lots of heat. So much heat over time, they end up causing the rods to melt if they aren't supplied with water. This is the "melt down" you always hear about. If you start then spraying water on them after they melt down, it caries away some of those highly radioactive fission products with the steam. This is what happened in Chernobyl, there was also a human element that overdid all their safety equipment, but that just goes to show you the worst case.

The same thing didn't happen in Fukushima. What happened in Fukushima is that coolant was lost to the core and they started to melt down. The tubes which contain the uranium are made from zirconium. At high temps, water and zirconium react to form hydrogen gas. Now modern reactor buildings are designed to trap gases, usually steam, in the event of a reactor breach. In the case of hydrogen, that gas builds up till a spark of some kind happens and causes an explosion. These are the explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Both of the major failures and dangers of current reactors deal with the high pressure water; but water isn't needed to make a reactor run, just this type of reactor.

The fact that reactors have radioactive materials in them isn't really unsafe itself. What is unsafe is reactor designs that create a pressure to push that radioactivity into other areas. A electroplating plant, for example, uses concentrated acids along with high voltage electricity in their fabrication processes. It "sounds" dangerous, and it is in a certain sense, but it is a manageable danger that will most likely only have very localized effects in the event of a catastrophic event. This is due mainly to the fact that there are no forces driving those toxic chemical elements into the surrounding areas...they are just acid baths. The same goes for nuclear materials, they aren't more or less dangerus than gasoline (gas go boom!), if handled properly.

I think one of the best reactor designs in terms of both safety and efficiency are the molten salt reactors. They don't use water as a coolant, and as a result operate at normal preasures. The fuel and coolant is a liquid lithium, fluoride, and beryllium salt instead of water, and the initial fuel is thorium instead of uranium. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid, you can do all sorts of neat things with it, most notably, in case of an emergency, you can just dump all the fuel into a storage tank that is passively cooled then pump it back to the reactor once the issue is resolved. It is a safety feature that doesn't require much engineering, you are just using the ever constant force of gravity. This is what is known as passive safety, it isn't something you have to do, it is something that happens automatically. So in many cases, what they designed is a freeze plug that is being cooled. If that fails for any reason, and you desire a shutdown, the freeze plug melts and the entire contents of the reactor are drained into the tanks and fission stops (fission needs a certain geometry to happen).

So while the reactor will still be as dangerous as any other industrial machine would be...like a blast furnace, it wouldn't pose any threat to the surrounding area. This is boosted by the fact that even if you lost containment AND you had a ruptured emergency storage tank, these liquid salts solidify at temps below 400c, so while they are liquid in the reactor, they quickly solidify outside of it. And another great benefit is they are remarkably stable. Air and water don't really leach anything from them, fluoride and lithium are just so happy binding with things, they don't let go!

The fuel burn up is also really great. You burn up 90% of what you put in, and if you try hard, you can burn up to 99%. So, comparing them to "clean coal" doesn't really give new reactor tech its fair shake. The tech we use was actually sort of denounced by the person who made them, Alvin Weinberg, and he advocated the molten salt reactor instead. I could babble on about this for ages, but I think Kirk Sorensen explains that better than I could...hell most likely the bulk of what I said is said better by him



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

But the real question is why. Why use nuclear and not solar, for instance?

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

This is the answer. The power of the atom is a MILLION times more dense that fossil fuels...a million! It is a number that is beyond what we can normal grasp as people. Right now, current reactors harness less that 1% of that power because of their reactor design and fuel choice.

And unfortunately, renewables just cost to darn much for how much energy they contribute. In that, they also use WAY more resources to make per unit energy produced. So wind, for example, uses 10x more steal per unit energy contributed than other technologies. It is because renewables is more like energy farming.

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


This is a really great video on that maths behind what makes renewables less than attractive for many countries. But to rap it up, finally, the real benefit is that cheap, clean power is what helps makes nations great. There is an inexorable link with access to energy and financial well being. Poor nations burn coal to try and bridge that gap, but that has a huge health toll. Renewables are way to costly for them per unit energy, they really need other answers. New nuclear could be just that, because it can be made nearly completely safe, very cheap to operate, and easier to manufacture (this means very cheap compared to today's reactors as they are basically huge pressure vessels). If you watch a couple of videos from Kirk and have more questions or problems, let me know, as you can see, I love talking about this stuff Sorry if I gabbed your ear off, but this is the stuff I am going back to school for because I do believe it will change the world. It is the closest thing to free energy we are going to get in the next 20 years.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Just stumbled onto your profile page and noticed an exchange you had with dag a few months back.
What constitutes "safe nuclear"? Is that a specific type or category of nuclear power?
Without context (which I'm sure I could obtain elsewise with a simple Google search, but I'd rather just ask), it sounds like "clean coal".

>> ^Porksandwich:

Too bad the shields it put up around the 2 minute mark failed shortly after.


Looked more like a Metreon Cascade to me.