>> ^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.

Well said, Gorillaman.

Another fun fact that isn't mentioned is that uranium can be had from some pretty stable countries: Australia, Canada, Brazil (and some less stable ones).

I would also like to submit that Jacobson sounds like Ray Romano.

I don't think Michio is a geologist. All this oil is basically coming out of a small drilled hole extending a long way downwards to the reservoir. The idea is to seal that hole, which seems quite plausible. It's not like other fissures could open because the oil is just too deep.
Also on the radiation issue, there have been tons of underwater tests and such a big ocean can easily absorb some nuclear material without ever reaching dangerous levels. It's estimated that the oceans already contain contain 10^13 kg of uranium (from natural sources).
I'd prefer some radioactive material to oil gushing out until August. Still, it might not be a good idea, but I think it should be studied instead of immediately dismissed.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Iran, turkey, brazil, nuclear, fuel, uranium, enrichment, deal' to 'Iran, turkey, brazil, nuclear, fuel, uranium, enrichment, deal, tyt, young turks' - edited by demon_ix

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Iran' to 'Iran, turkey, brazil, nuclear, fuel, uranium, enrichment, deal' - edited by demon_ix

Thank you. Let me know when you've sifted Home and I'll *quality it.

In reply to this comment by LarsaruS:
>> ^lore_weaver:

Overpopulation is a myth. Things like Organic Farming and "Green lifestyle" do more to lower the capacity our planet has for humans.
Environmentalist Fanatics cite overpopulation as one of the biggest issues we face, when they start using 20 times the amount of land it would take to produce the same amount of "normal" food.
Also, while Nuclear power may strictly be "non-renewable" it's going to be a long while before we run out of uranium, and switching to Nuclear would be safer than our existing energy, and allow us to turn off Coal and Oil power sources.


What arvana said above + I would recommend the documentary Home for people who want to see how much we have changed the world.
Wikipage

>> ^lore_weaver:

Overpopulation is a myth. Things like Organic Farming and "Green lifestyle" do more to lower the capacity our planet has for humans.
Environmentalist Fanatics cite overpopulation as one of the biggest issues we face, when they start using 20 times the amount of land it would take to produce the same amount of "normal" food.
Also, while Nuclear power may strictly be "non-renewable" it's going to be a long while before we run out of uranium, and switching to Nuclear would be safer than our existing energy, and allow us to turn off Coal and Oil power sources.


What arvana said above + I would recommend the documentary Home for people who want to see how much we have changed the world.
Wikipage

Overpopulation is a myth. Things like Organic Farming and "Green lifestyle" do more to lower the capacity our planet has for humans.

Environmentalist Fanatics cite overpopulation as one of the biggest issues we face, when they start using 20 times the amount of land it would take to produce the same amount of "normal" food.

Also, while Nuclear power may strictly be "non-renewable" it's going to be a long while before we run out of uranium, and switching to Nuclear would be safer than our existing energy, and allow us to turn off Coal and Oil power sources.

Uranium powered volacono's, the new era in green volcano technology.

Here's a talk by Bill Gates about nuclear power as an energy source. Not about Thorium, but still interesting... I tried to sift it, but it kept giving me an "code is incorrect" and I just don't know enough to fix it:

Boing Boing article: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/12/highlights-from-ted-2.html
TED video: http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html?awesm=on.ted.com_89Dt

excerpt from article above:
"A molecule of uranium has a million times more energy than a molecule of coal." He and Nathan "Mosquito Zapper" Myrhvold are backing a nuclear approach. It's called Terrapower, and it's different from a standard nuclear reactor. Instead of burning the 1% of uranium-235 found in natural uranium, this reactor burns the other 99%, called uranium-238. You can use all the leftover waste from today's reactors as fuel. "In terms of fuel this really solves the problem." He showed a photo of depleted waste uranium in steel cylinders at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky -- the waste at this plant could supply the US energy needs for 200 years (woah!), and filtering seawater for uranium could supply energy for much longer than that.

Let's not forget thorium fluoride fission reactors.... compared to the uranium reactors we use we have plenty of fuel, much safer, nuclear waste safe much quicker.

>> ^Fade:

The problem with fission is resources. There just isn't that much fiisile material for long term use. He mentions this issue in passing in the talk but it's actually really important.

Not true for Liquid Flouride Thorium reactors. Thorium is abundant everywhere on the planet, it's cheap to mine and doesn't require costly processing like uranium. LFT reactors also produce a fraction of the waste byproducts that current fission techonology produces, the byproducts are not suitable for weaponizing, the waste only needs to be stored for 300 years instead of 10,000 and you can even use LFT reactors to burn radioactive byproducts from current fission reactors. It's also a proven technology. We know it works.

Thorium reactors were not developed when fission energy began in this country precisely because you could not make weapons out of the waste material. Considering it's relative safety (it's a self stabilizing reaction) there are essentially no rational reasons not to use LFT fission reactors today.

Ahw this video makes ecotards cry.

It's quite simple and I believe it was stated by a Saudi sheik "The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones, The Oil Age won't end because we run out of oil"

This means that long before oil runs out we will have a better way to power the world. And it will take long for all the oil to run out, much longer than the ecos predict. There a vast amounts of oil in tar sands and shales. Huge new oil fields have been discovered off the coasts of South American countries. Beyond oil there are still higher reserves of natural gas and coal.

If we don't want to have to resort to geo-engineering to restore a warming climate we must find an alternative to fossil fuels long before they run out. So what do we have, wind, water and sun. Only the sun could reasonably provide all the energy we need after a huge industrial effort to build these things in place like the Sahara.
However we also have nuclear energy. There are vast amounts of Uranium that are waiting to be discovered once the demand for Uranium increases. Using a Thorium reactor you could breed and burn fissile material out of Thorium. This process yields much less long lived waste because you basically burn up most of the radioactive materials. Also Thorium is three times as plentiful as Uranium.
This gives Fusion a lot of time to get its act together and finally deliver on the promise of nearly boundless energy.

Creating fertilizer doesn't need fossil fuels. All it needs is nitrogen, hydrogen and high pressures and temperatures (energy).
Al machines can still run on clean fuel cells which were charged with power delivered by the above processes of energy generation.

I'm quite optimistic, I think we are heading for a bright future if we invest in alternative energy and don't fuck up the World too much in the time it takes to get to that goal.

WTF! Between this and the Polywell fusion reactor...
Apparently we've had the technology to solve our clean energy needs for half a century but they were abandoned and nearly lost because they didn't serve the right masters.

If Liquid flouride thorium reactors don't produce byproducts that can be weaponized then this should be developed as the standard for devloping nations everwhere in the world. This would prevent international concerns like we're experiencing with Iran's nucleur program right now since the technology of liquid flouride thorium fusion apparently does not share any similarities with the process of refining Uranium for weapons.

I want to add to Lies channel for the assertion that this is a zero emissions car, but he did correct himself, so I won't. This car is quite absolutely not a zero emissions car.

As EDD linked and mentioned, yes. The car is RATED at 230 mpg, but that's only assuming you rarely pass the distance your battery allows you to travel and doesn't actually take into account the coal/gas/petrol/uranium used to generate the electricity you'll be using.

The problem with the Volt, is the Battery. It lasts for 40 miles or so. After that you go on your normal engine, which only charges the battery, but is still converting gas into electricity in an inefficient car motor.

But batteries have a nature of being less and less effective over time. So your Volt battery might have the capacity to go only 30 miles after a year of use. And 20 or so after two.
DISCLAIMER: The numbers I just quoted are wholly made up. I have no idea how the Volt's battery will behave after a year of use. I just know it can only go down.

How much does a battery cost? Where can you get it replaced? Is it a simple process, requiring only one mechanic, a spare battery and 15 minutes of work? Or is it a complex procedure involving taking apart some of the outer casing of the car to get to where the battery is stored? How often are you expected to replace the battery?

Your car is an asset, whether you treat it as one or not. A car that is supposed to use an electric motor for 40 miles, but runs out of juice after 20 will depreciate significantly. How are you ever going to get rid of it?

There were a few sifts about Better Place and their whole business model regarding electric cars and replaceable batteries, which I feel is a much better solution than the plug-in hybrids. Time will tell however.