What we have is not capitalism. We haven't had that for a very long time....
Coming Energy problems.....
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Tense aside, we're actually ruled by an 'elected' dictatorship...
And what we have is the same pure unadulterated capitalism that it was designed to be...
Or as it's more acurately described - 'f*ck you as I'm alright jack' ism!
And what we have is the same pure unadulterated capitalism that it was designed to be...
Or as it's more acurately described - 'f*ck you as I'm alright jack' ism!
Sponsored Links
A LFTR doesn't need the containment of conventional nukes, nor does it need the vast array of backup systems. The guys at Oak Ridge would often switch off power to the reactor and go home for the weekend. The salt plug freeze valve would melt and the fuel would safely drain back into the tanks below. It doesn't work like that with conventional nukes as Fukushima has neatly illustrated.
It sounds like a few people have been reading / watching Chris Martenson's 'Crash Course'? http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
Or if you haven't, you probably should.... Short youtube version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eidQTDjQ5gw
Long version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZbOioGw-d4[/QUOTE]
More on thorium :
And a more detailed report here:
http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/27860/nnl__1314092891_thorium_cycle_position_paper.pdf
Note the proliferation, and economics issues.
No mention of LFTR's or MSR's I note. It does it's best to talk down Thorium but you would expect that.
The existing Uranium based industry has no intention of being forced to abandon their existing investment. It's a very convenient barrier to new entrants and they pay NNL's bills as the report clearly recognises.
I asked my butcher about the benefits of moving over to vegetarian sausages. He produced a very similar report.
The existing Uranium based industry has no intention of being forced to abandon their existing investment. It's a very convenient barrier to new entrants and they pay NNL's bills as the report clearly recognises.
I asked my butcher about the benefits of moving over to vegetarian sausages. He produced a very similar report.
What country do you live in?
Because in the UK +40% of GDP is apparently public spending.
Energy and water companies are given government mandated monopolies.
The postal service is government owned, we have to pay for a TV licence giving 95%+ of the money to one organisation.
BT still have a monopoly on sections of telecommunications.
Banks are given state aid.
Rail lines are owned by the government, most roads.
Reams and reams of red tape and taxes exist which very favourably helps big businesses and puts new small starters at a disadvantage.
Healthcare is government run, with a monopoly service, pharmaceuticals are subsidised.
Arms manufacturing is subsides.
Many manufacturing business have received bungs of cash to help them keep going.
So what country do you live in, because you can't live in the UK, unless of course you haven't the slightest clue what capitalism actually is?
pmsl....
If it wasn't clear before, it is now...
You have no clue whatsoever!
One of the goals of capitalism is the moving of funds from public to private hands...
And you show your total ignorance by spouting on about government owned/state aid/government subsidies etc etc...
Guess what - it's OUR money that is being misappropriated, not the 'government's'...the government has nothing and owns nothing!
Do you even understand that?
I doubt it, but then you are ideologically stupid!
And like Joe (and 'soft in the head'
) you really need to wean yourself off that blinkered wiki addiction of yours...lolStill, you never cease to give me a good laugh....
Goals of capitalism?
It's not some new world order organisation, what a daft thing to say.
wiki said:
Hurr durr, you say we have pure unadulterated capitalism, then acknowledge it's massively government owned or aided, which is not capitalism.
Ok dude, try walking into No.10, various military bases, government buildings and labs, see how far "government owns nothing" gets you.
You mean other than than the large image I posted up, where it mentions LFTRs in bold.
If thorium was currently viable, and good to go, there is no reason they would reject it, as they would still be able to get plenty of work from it, them being a nuclear research institute and all.
The Government also pays its bills (and pushed the industry in particular directions), and there is nothing to stop it from asking NNL from researching this further it it was felt it worthwhile.
You misunderstand the system.
Those currently involved in research in nuclear could just as easily make money researching thorium systems. This is a non-issue.
The mian arguement is economic, as one already has an established fuel cycle that can be run economically, whereas a thorium fuel-cycle is an immature technology that still needs pilot and full scale proving plants.
Its immaturity is highlighted here:
"Thorium fuel cycle R&D has a long history dating back to the very beginning of the nuclear industry. Though there are potential advantages, with the exception of India, it has failed to become established in commercial reactors for the reasons that have been explained in this report. Even in India, utilisation of thorium fuels still remains at relatively small scale. In recent years the thorium fuel cycle has been promoted by many research groups and technical companies such as Lightbridge and Thor Energy.
While the thorium fuel cycle has some benefits compared with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle, these have yet to be demonstrated or substantiated, particularly in a commercial or regulatory environment. The U-Pu fuel cycle has the advantage of being fully mature and of having used in three generations of reactor designs. In contrast, the thorium fuel cycle is disadvantaged because all the supporting infrastructure would have to be established from scratch.
This is very relevant to the UK, especially at the present time in view of plans to start a new build programme in the UK based on LWRs. It could be argued that the main priority for the UK is to ensure the momentum that the new build programme currently has built up is maintained, in order that the new build plants will be available in good time to meet the projected shortfalls of low carbon electrical capacity. This only permits existing reactor designs with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle. Innovative thorium fuelled reactors will not be a viable alternative for at least 20 to 30 years and definitely cannot meet the new build timescales. A limited role for thorium fuels in new build LWRs might be possible at a later date, with perhaps a partial transition to thorium-U233 fuels later in their lifetimes and any major shift towards the thorium fuel cycle would only be realistic in a follow-on programme of reactor construction."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/65504/6300-comparison-fuel-cycles.pdf
As has been said, if/when uranium ore prices look to sky rocket, thorium could become viable. But until then, its current status deems it unviable.
So come on then...
You tell us what you believe the 'government' actually owns...
Do tell us how 'they' pay for what you think they 'own'...
And then also tell us how 'they' would exist if there was nothing coming in to the coffers from 'us'...
It's amazing how some people have been so easily fooled into believing that common property law no longer applies...
But then it's hardly surprising in your case when your only response is to bring in the NWO.....pmsl at you yet again!
Well, why don't you stop paying them, then they can throw you in jail (that they own), that will soon teach you that yes, the government does own a fair bit of stuff.
an explosion of technology, affordable to most has drained the grid.
tvs,laptops,computers,computer games,dishwashers,washing machines,dryers,stereos,toasters,microwaves,mobiles,i phones, plasma,lcd tvs
recorders,food mixers,kettles,electric heaters,hairdryers, the list goes on.
nothing wrong in having these things,but its created a major problem.
pity we cannot not put technology to draw the energy thats deep in the earth,
but its to deep , for us to get to. the deepest they got was in russia,i think
5 miles deep, but the machinery couldn't cope after that depth.
.
tvs,laptops,computers,computer games,dishwashers,washing machines,dryers,stereos,toasters,microwaves,mobiles,i phones, plasma,lcd tvs
recorders,food mixers,kettles,electric heaters,hairdryers, the list goes on.
nothing wrong in having these things,but its created a major problem.
pity we cannot not put technology to draw the energy thats deep in the earth,
but its to deep , for us to get to. the deepest they got was in russia,i think
5 miles deep, but the machinery couldn't cope after that depth.
.
J
joinerjohn
Whilst your argument sounds convincing, you have much to research. The reactor at Oak Ridge (although running for almost 4 yrs, didn't produce any electricity whatsoever. It was a testbed only. Technology needs a rather large leap for MSR's or LFTR's to be developed. Some of the technology hasn't been developed for these types of reactors to be run productively. Even if the technology is developed (years away too) they produce radioactive by products which have half life's measured in 1000's of years. Not only that there are highly toxic by products of the reactions, beryllium to name one.
Sponsored Links
