Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by Milo » Mon May 07, 2018 10:18 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:25 am
Nuclear? Nah. Its too dangerous.
No it isn't.

http://www.davosman.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39
I believe in Murphy's Law.

What can go wrong will go wrong.

That's how we got Chernobyl, Three MIle Island and Fukushimaya. You can be very careful and put in all the precautions. The probability of failure is very low, I agree. But it is not 0%. The trouble is that radioactivity is very dangerous and lasts a long time.
I think that you did not take in the slightest bit of information from that thread.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1222
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue May 08, 2018 10:34 pm

Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 10:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:25 am
Nuclear? Nah. Its too dangerous.
No it isn't.

http://www.davosman.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39
I believe in Murphy's Law.

What can go wrong will go wrong.

That's how we got Chernobyl, Three MIle Island and Fukushimaya. You can be very careful and put in all the precautions. The probability of failure is very low, I agree. But it is not 0%. The trouble is that radioactivity is very dangerous and lasts a long time.
I think that you did not take in the slightest bit of information from that thread.
Sorry, Cass, but I have to agree. Molten salt thorium reactors work fundamentally differently from current uranium-based fission reactors. They literally cannot melt down.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by Milo » Tue May 08, 2018 10:53 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 10:34 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 10:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:25 am
Nuclear? Nah. Its too dangerous.
No it isn't.

http://www.davosman.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39
I believe in Murphy's Law.

What can go wrong will go wrong.

That's how we got Chernobyl, Three MIle Island and Fukushimaya. You can be very careful and put in all the precautions. The probability of failure is very low, I agree. But it is not 0%. The trouble is that radioactivity is very dangerous and lasts a long time.
I think that you did not take in the slightest bit of information from that thread.
Sorry, Cass, but I have to agree. Molten salt thorium reactors work fundamentally differently from current uranium-based fission reactors. They literally cannot melt down.
And they generate less than 1% of the waste of conventional fast breeders, with a much shorter half life.

In addition they can burn down waste from conventional reactors to less than 1% of its volume: the only credible solution to the waste problems of conventional reactors.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by cassowary » Wed May 09, 2018 3:24 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 10:34 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 10:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:25 am
Nuclear? Nah. Its too dangerous.
No it isn't.

http://www.davosman.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39
I believe in Murphy's Law.

What can go wrong will go wrong.

That's how we got Chernobyl, Three MIle Island and Fukushimaya. You can be very careful and put in all the precautions. The probability of failure is very low, I agree. But it is not 0%. The trouble is that radioactivity is very dangerous and lasts a long time.
I think that you did not take in the slightest bit of information from that thread.
Sorry, Cass, but I have to agree. Molten salt thorium reactors work fundamentally differently from current uranium-based fission reactors. They literally cannot melt down.
That may be so because of the "freeze plug" melting and draining the liquid into tanks below thus stopping the process. But the process includes the creation of U-233, which is radioactive and the intermediate stage could be more radioactive than our current uranium reactors. Things can still go wrong. Terrorist attack? Earthquake? Tornado? Radioactive stuff could still escape in such events.

It's safer though and the radioactive waste will stay dangerous for only 300 years instead of 10,000 years.

Info was taken from this video:



I am not a scientist. So I don't understand this stuff. But I do feel uneasy with anything radioactive.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by Milo » Wed May 09, 2018 9:40 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 3:24 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 10:34 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 10:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:05 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:25 am
Nuclear? Nah. Its too dangerous.
No it isn't.

http://www.davosman.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39
I believe in Murphy's Law.

What can go wrong will go wrong.

That's how we got Chernobyl, Three MIle Island and Fukushimaya. You can be very careful and put in all the precautions. The probability of failure is very low, I agree. But it is not 0%. The trouble is that radioactivity is very dangerous and lasts a long time.
I think that you did not take in the slightest bit of information from that thread.
Sorry, Cass, but I have to agree. Molten salt thorium reactors work fundamentally differently from current uranium-based fission reactors. They literally cannot melt down.
That may be so because of the "freeze plug" melting and draining the liquid into tanks below thus stopping the process. But the process includes the creation of U-233, which is radioactive and the intermediate stage could be more radioactive than our current uranium reactors. Things can still go wrong. Terrorist attack? Earthquake? Tornado? Radioactive stuff could still escape in such events.

It's safer though and the radioactive waste will stay dangerous for only 300 years instead of 10,000 years.

Info was taken from this video:



I am not a scientist. So I don't understand this stuff. But I do feel uneasy with anything radioactive.
There are NO standards for radioactive emissions from hydrocarbon extraction and the amount of radioactive byproducts can be notable.

"With the increase of any type of petroleum production comes an increase of production-related waste. Certain production activities cause naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) to be concentrated at higher levels than what is typically found in nature. It may seem strange that this discussion is not at the forefront of environmental concerns, especially when radioactive waste from other sources, like nuclear power plants, is so highly publicized."

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/logan2/

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1222
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed May 09, 2018 10:28 am

Milo wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:40 am
There are NO standards for radioactive emissions from hydrocarbon extraction and the amount of radioactive byproducts can be notable.

"With the increase of any type of petroleum production comes an increase of production-related waste. Certain production activities cause naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) to be concentrated at higher levels than what is typically found in nature. It may seem strange that this discussion is not at the forefront of environmental concerns, especially when radioactive waste from other sources, like nuclear power plants, is so highly publicized."

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/logan2/
Fascinating. I didn't know that!
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1684
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by Doc » Wed May 09, 2018 3:30 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:28 am
Milo wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:40 am
There are NO standards for radioactive emissions from hydrocarbon extraction and the amount of radioactive byproducts can be notable.

"With the increase of any type of petroleum production comes an increase of production-related waste. Certain production activities cause naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) to be concentrated at higher levels than what is typically found in nature. It may seem strange that this discussion is not at the forefront of environmental concerns, especially when radioactive waste from other sources, like nuclear power plants, is so highly publicized."

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/logan2/
Fascinating. I didn't know that!
Interesting that coal actually has lower concentrations of radioactivity than the surrounding rock. That is precisely what guides long wall mining machines to the center of coal seems. The sensors just look for the lowest radioactive levels. The lowest level is the center of the coal seem. These are Sensors I have literally had the opportunity to hold in my hand.

But in fact radioactive waste from Coal ash and Oil is at higher concentrations than natural radioactivity because the radioactive elements in it do not burn and therefore are more concentrated . HOWEVER the highest concentrations of Radioactivity from Coal or OIl are still far lower than the lowest concentrations of radioactivity from nuclear power. Or X-ray machines for that matter.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

Post Reply