The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Thorium reactors can't make bombs, that's why they were 'smothered in the crib'.

[All Darc]

So the TV documentary I saw made a mistake...
They clearly said breed reactor could turn easy manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel.

There is a new technology of solar panels that have a much smaller carbon footprint for manufacture. I will try to find the video.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Actually plutonium from natural or depleted uranium is generally not suitable for nuclear weapons.
This is one of the reasons all the 2 bit dictators want to enrich uranium.

Also the spent fuel from natural uranium and depleted uranium usually doesn't require active cooling until it's reprocessed. Just a pool of still water, mostly just to stop radiation.

Separating plutonium isotopes is almost impossible.
Too much 238 and it's useless too much 240 and it could spontaneously go off or at least melt down.

Supposedly solar panels take around 40kwh per 200 to 250 watt panel to make. For example a 220 panel should be able to make about 1kwh per day.
I don't know if I believe those numbers but that's all I could find.

[oil pan 4]

It depends on the type of reactor and fuel going into them.
All the term breeder reactor means is it makes more fissile fuel than it consumes.
With enriched uranium they absolutely can make fuel for nuclear weapons.
Put 20% enriched uranium in a breeder and there will be some sweet weapons grade plutonium coming back out in a few months.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Actually plutonium from natural or depleted uranium is generally not suitable for nuclear weapons.
This is one of the reasons all the 2 bit dictators want to enrich uranium.

Also the spent fuel from natural uranium and depleted uranium usually doesn't require active cooling until it's reprocessed. Just a pool of still water, mostly just to stop radiation.

Separating plutonium isotopes is almost impossible.
Too much 238 and it's useless too much 240 and it could spontaneously go off or at least melt down.

Supposedly solar panels take around 40kwh per 200 to 250 watt panel to make. For example a 220 panel should be able to make about 1kwh per day.
I don't know if I believe those numbers but that's all I could find.

A former client is an auditor.He can tell from your spreadsheets whether or not you've cooked your books and are cheating on your taxes.
Which suggests that between the Commerce Dept. and Treasury,they have,current,state-of-the-art data,with respect to manufacturing costs and profit margins.I'd love to have access to that data.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I haven't looked into this more deeply, but it appears that his thought crime is being in favor of nuclear power.

Manufacturing consensus?

I wasted 6-minutes of my life before I realized I could waste the full 18 minutes.
For me,life is too precious for this sort of material.
If websites want to expunge things from their narrative so be it.
I see larger issues with which to engage myself and my time.
Appreciate the link though.

[freebeard]

If websites want to expunge things from their narrative so be it.
I see larger issues with which to engage myself and my time.

Try 1.25x or 1.5x. It's gone beyond websites exercising their rights. De-platforming is when all the social media sites act in unison. And if they're coming for you, the first actors are Patreon, Paypal, credit card companies and, lately, banks.

The Olde Soviet Union didn't even have Photoshop, they had to use bullets.

[redpoint5]

Might be another good reason to invest in physical currency, such as silver. Platforms might drop people, but you can't drop demand for physical goods.

The threat of getting dropped by a platform is nothing to me. If they don't want good ideas and good investors, then it's their loss. I don't want to associate with anyone that doesn't want to associate with me anyhow.

[sendler]

In addition, when new energy sources supplanted pre-existing ones in the past, it was always because they proved to be “superior” to those in terms of energetic quality and productivity. Coal supplanted water, wind power and biomass because it proved to be a much more powerful, convenient and versatile source of energy. Petroleum then supplanted coal because it was superior still in terms of energy density, power density, fungibility, storability, transportability, ready availability, convenience and versatility of use. On all these aspects it does not appear that solar and wind energy may be in the same way “superior” to fossil fuels – but rather that they are in fact significantly “inferior”. The capture of diffuse and intermittent energy flows through man-made devices is, inherently, an imperfect substitute for the extraction and burning of concentrated energy locked up in fossil fuels. Unfortunately, no amount of “innovation” is fundamentally going to change that.
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...mate-strikers/

[sendler]

Here is how: in addition to your “climate strike”, or as a substitute to it if or when you get frustrated of being denied the kind of change you want, embark with all the strength and enthusiasm of your youth on an “energy diet”. A big, fat, relentless and endless energy diet. Not only on Fridays, but every single day of the week, 365 days per year, for the rest of your life.

Think about it this way: climate-wrecking fossil fuels only get supplied because there is huge and rising demand for them. And this demand, ultimately, comes from you, from me, from us. The vast majority of the things we do, each and every day, in each and every aspect of our lives, entails using fossil fuels, either in your country or on the other side of the world, or somewhere in between. For most of those things fossil fuels cannot be easily and quickly substituted by energy obtained from solar and wind flows. Therefore, just stop doing them, or at least reduce what you do to what is really necessary and useful.

[freebeard]

"We have met the enemy, and it is us"

Walt Kelly

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If they don't want good ideas and good investors, then it's their loss.

The problem is that when one platform dominates, such as Twitter, it becomes indistinguishable from infrastructure. The Lounge isn't going to move the needle on public perception.