The Green New Deal

acbytesla said:
Ever hear of an "elevator pitch" RBF? It's important for people to get to their point quickly if they don't want to lose their audience. I have little patience for those who don't get to their point and instead drone on. This video could have been two hours long and I would be happy to have watched the entire video if it could ever actually have said anything. But watching a 40 minute video for two minutes of content is not bearable.

BTW, I just finished watching a 38 minute presentation of the Integrated Molten Salt Reactor https://youtu.be/OgTgV3Kq49U

and before that a 48 minute video about the disadvantages of Thorium.
https://youtu.be/GAiHtrWHxK0

And before that a 1 hour 43 minute presentation of Microsoft's Hololens
https://youtu.be/mMNVSwO1yDo
Click to expand...

Thanks for those links. There goes the evening...
 
acbytesla said:
Sorry about that. If you want to blow tomorrow night, try this one too.

Tour of Oak Ridge National Laboratory

https://youtu.be/8hA8V8y52BM

2:24 minutes


The more I learn about nuclear physics, the more I'm convinced that are problems are solvable if we can get out of our way.
Click to expand...

I'm getting really interested in clean tech.

I'm an investor and I'm looking to transition into these industries (I still hold Shell at the moment, a huge polluter).

I've been a big nuclear energy supporter since forever and thought it really was picking up when Fukushima happened. Now I think it is getting popular again thanks to Asia. Europe and the US have gone full retard, abandoning technologies that may kill some people in favour of technologies that will kill everybody. Spain is looking to shut down its nuke plants now.

Any info welcome, I'm learning a lot recently.

My 14-year-old daughter had to make a case for wave and tidal energy for a school project, I did the research with her. It's a very interesting technology. But the companies that lead the way are short of money and it frustrates me no end.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
I'm getting really interested in clean tech.

I'm an investor and I'm looking to transition into these industries (I still hold Shell at the moment, a huge polluter).

I've been a big nuclear energy supporter since forever and thought it really was picking up when Fukushima happened. Now I think it is getting popular again thanks to Asia. Europe and the US have gone full retard, abandoning technologies that may kill some people in favour of technologies that will kill everybody. Spain is looking to shut down its nuke plants now.

Any info welcome, I'm learning a lot recently.

My 14-year-old daughter had to make a case for wave and tidal energy for a school project, I did the research with her. It's a very interesting technology. But the companies that lead the way are short of money and it frustrates me no end.
Click to expand...

Tidal and wave energy are both very interesting. There's a fascinating plant in Western Australia used to run a desalination plant that provides fresh water for 500,000 people.

I use to be anti-nuclear because I thought the waste problem was insolvable. But I've learned that the problem has been grossly exaggerated. In fact, it turns out that 95 percent of the waste is really unspent fuel and 4.5 of the other 5 percent is quite valuable

The other consideration seems to be preventing a nuclear accident like Fukishima and Chernobyl which like almost all nuclear plants in operation today have an inherent risk for a catastrophic accident because of the use of high pressure water as a coolant.

New Generation 4 plants that use molten salt as a coolant seem to be the future. They not only eliminate that risk, their low pressure high temperature coolant can be used for far more than power generation.

I'm excited about the possibilities. Thorium seems to be very interesting, yet almost no one wants to jump into that pool first.

As an investor, my instinct is to look at companies developing expertise in dealing with molten salt as it seems as half the energy industry is looking at it as an energy storage medium.
 
Last edited:
In the current economic environment, investors are loath to bind their money to projects that require decades of commitment - which is the case for all nuclear power generating systems.
Without government guarantees, Nuclear Power won't make a comeback in the foreseeable future.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
In the current economic environment, investors are loath to bind their money to projects that require decades of commitment - which is the case for all nuclear power generating systems.
Without government guarantees, Nuclear Power won't make a comeback in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

This.

Nobody is so idealistic that they'd throw their money in a bottomless pit.
 
acbytesla said:
Tidal and wave energy are both very interesting. There's a fascinating plant in Western Australia used to run a desalination plant that provides fresh water for 500,000 people.

I use to be anti-nuclear because I thought the waste problem was insolvable. But I've learned that the problem has been grossly exaggerated. In fact, it turns out that 95 percent of the waste is really unspent fuel and 4.5 of the other 5 percent is quite valuable

The other consideration seems to be preventing a nuclear accident like Fukishima and Chernobyl which like almost all nuclear plants in operation today have an inherent risk for a catastrophic accident because of the use of high pressure water as a coolant.

New Generation 4 plants that use molten salt as a coolant seem to be the future. They not only eliminate that risk, their low pressure high temperature coolant can be used for far more than power generation.

I'm excited about the possibilities. Thorium seems to be very interesting, yet almost no one wants to jump into that pool first.

As an investor, my instinct is to look at companies developing expertise in dealing with molten salt as it seems as half the energy industry is looking at it as an energy storage medium.
Click to expand...

The Dutch are considering a carbon tax, that could make alternatives competitive.

But apart from that, I'm pessimistic about the speed at which alternatives are implemented and/or funded.

Some of the companies I've looked at:
Nuclear: verge of bankruptcy.
Wave energy company Carnegie has declined 97% since this positive article was published. I think they are no longer public.
Fuel cell company FCEL looks dire.

Governments need to get involved at this point and get some push behind this.
 
Eddie Dane said:
The Dutch are considering a carbon tax, that could make alternatives competitive.

But apart from that, I'm pessimistic about the speed at which alternatives are implemented and/or funded.

Some of the companies I've looked at:
Nuclear: verge of bankruptcy.
Wave energy company Carnegie has declined

Governments need to get involved at this point and get some push behind this.
Click to expand...

None of this surprises me. Few of these are ripe for being publicly traded. The Nuclear sector has a dozen new companies. 80% of which or more are likely to crash and burn. Choosing the right company to invest in is challenging. Not only is picking the best technology difficult but picking the company is extremely hard. Bill Gates has invested a half a billion dollars into Terrawave and traveling wave reactors and I'm not sure it is a better solution than any of the other companies proposing small module reactors. Imagine losing a half a billion dollars.

I have been studying the energy sector intensely for years and I don't feel comfortable with any of the investment opportunities I've looked at. The one I did take a flyer on lost half its value in the first six months I owned it. I mention molten salt simply because of the versatility of applications and the intense interest in it.

Good luck with your investing. I hope you make a killing.
 
acbytesla said:
None of this surprises me. Few of these are ripe for being publicly traded. The Nuclear sector has a dozen new companies. 80% of which or more are likely to crash and burn. Choosing the right company to invest in is challenging. Not only is picking the best technology difficult but picking the company is extremely hard. Bill Gates has invested a half a billion dollars into Terrawave and traveling wave reactors and I'm not sure it is a better solution than any of the other companies proposing small module reactors. Imagine losing a half a billion dollars.

I have been studying the energy sector intensely for years and I don't feel comfortable with any of the investment opportunities I've looked at. The one I did take a flyer on lost half its value in the first six months I owned it. I mention molten salt simply because of the versatility of applications and the intense interest in it.

Good luck with your investing. I hope you make a killing.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I'm coming to the awful realisation that I'm better of putting my money in companies that deal with the effects of climate change, such as reinforcing coastlines, than technologies that could have prevented the damage.

In Europe, there are many demonstrations by schoolkids demanding policy changes regarding climate change. So that gives hope.

But on the other hand, we have a climate change denying party rising in the polls right now here in the Netherlands.
 
Belz... said:
No such thing. If you generate megawatts, there will be major environmental impacts. You can have cleaner tech, at least compared to coal.
Click to expand...

I know, but coal is INSANELY dirty, that's the one I'd like to see disappear in my lifetime.
 
"Clean" is a bad buzzword to get hung up on.

But regardless by damn near any factor coal is just the worse.
 
Belz... said:
Sorry, the answer was "because people are scaret ******** about nuclear and thus the costs have gone up."

Now, let me tell you what you didn't win...
Click to expand...

I would argue that the costs have become apparent, not gone up.
In the US, no one has really planned the entire lifecycle of nuclear power, from mining to decommissioning. Now that mines and reactors must close, the actual bill comes due, not the the Jetson-cartoon version of nuclear power energy providers tried to sell to the public.
 
Belz... said:
No such thing. If you generate megawatts, there will be major environmental impacts. You can have cleaner tech, at least compared to coal.
Click to expand...

I'm more convinced than ever that nuclear power is the cleanest and maybe the safest by a mile of any energy source that I've looked at. But it scares people because they don't understand it. I've been for the last 6 months trying to soak up every bit of information I can to get a complete understanding and I'm afraid I've barely scratched the surface.

Kirk Sorensen has made me a tentative convert of LFTR. But I feel like I must be missing something since he hasn't convinced many in the nuclear industry. It's not that they oppose the LFTR, they just aren't on board yet. And this makes me wonder why? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
"Clean" is a bad buzzword to get hung up on.

But regardless by damn near any factor coal is just the worse.
Click to expand...

Better than wood.

There's a time and a place for everything. Coal empowered the industrial revolution, which generated unprecedented amounts of surplus wealth, which in turn was invested in the foundations of just about every good thing civilization has produced in the past few hundred years. Without the quantum leap forward in productivity we got from coal, we wouldn't be in a position to talk about alternatives like solar and wind and nuclear. We wouldn't have global trade. We wouldn't have national power grids. We wouldn't have large-scale agriculture producing enough food to feed the entire world. We probably wouldn't have the vast medical establishment that underpins all our health care - even the crappy healthcare systems.

Coal may be worse than nuclear, but it's a damn sight better than wood, and wood was the only other option when coal came on the scene. I think that on balance, coal has been a great boon to humanity. Pollution and all.

Now, if you were to tell me, let's cut pollution without cutting productivity, by shifting from coal to nuclear, I'd support you 100%. But if you were to tell me, let's get rid of coal because coal is evil... Well.
 
Heck, there is even a decent chance that this time, Fusion power really is only 15 years away.
Making all new Supertanker/Freighter nuclear powered could massively reduce some of the worst pollution caused by the most dirty fraction of oil that is currently used. They could also easily be decommissioned by sinking them in a Godzilla-free spot of the ocean.
But that would probably only be done with meltdown-proof reactor designs.
 
LFTR

Belz... said:
The who to the what, now?

<checks>

Oh, a thorium reactor. Yes, that sounds remarkably better than current tech and has for a long time.
Click to expand...

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor It's a Flouride molten salt reactor that uses the Thorium Uranim 233 fuel cycle. Kirk Sorensen is like the Pied Piper of Thorium. There are quite a few videos on YouTube where he is espousing the benefits of Thorium breeder reactors, liquid fuel and molten salt. The passive safety features of molten salt seems to be a game changer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom