Comments on: Why software’s wealthiest should fund experimental technologies

By: Majorca

Majorca — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:43:50 +0000

The Iranians should be doing this too if they really only wanted energy.

By: josdorpjossie

josdorpjossie — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:13:45 +0000

agreed

By: Joseph

Joseph — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:14:10 +0000

Terra Power will not use new fuel but will use spent fuel. So it is part of the solution to the nuclear waste that we have’t dealt with.

By: Bri

Bri — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:22:47 +0000

Not to mention mining and refining the ore, or it’s potential in a dirty bomb. Let’s move forward not backwards. Solar is so close. If we made an Wll out effort to impliment what we have today, we wouldn’t be beholdent to any country or big oil companies. Not to mention helping to clean up the environment.

By: trakk

trakk — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:49:47 +0000

No matter how you try to spin and mock others who have a different view point than you, the fact is no matter how advanced the designs are…the nuclear waste will always be a problem.

Vast improvement isnt enough….total nuetralization is what matters.

He might be a genius, but dont be blind to this fact.

By: Editor

Editor — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:16:01 +0000

There is no support for this speculation that I’m aware of. The ionosphere actually consists of charged particles. You’re describing the Van Allen Belt.

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:02:11 +0000

I don’t think it’s wise to suck energy from the shield that protects us from charged particles from space.

By: TonyEmo

TonyEmo — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:38:47 +0000

I am amazed that so little attention is given to the nuclear energy option that is proven and safe – the thorium-fuelled reactor.

First discussed in the 1940s, thorium’s potential as an energy source was researched in the 1950s, culminating in a working reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1965-69. However, the nuclear weapons race pushed the focus onto uranium reactors, which produce plutonium.

Compared with uranium, thorium’s benefits as a nuclear fuel include:

IT IS EASILY PROCESSED
Unlike with uranium-235, thorium is comparatively easily processed to become a use-ready fuel. Also, thorium is much more plentiful.

HIGHER OPERATIONAL & PASSIVE SAFETY FEATURES
Thorium is more stable and has a higher melting point. It is an unpressurised, liquid fuel that does not require a large containment vessel. A loss of power melts a frozen salt plug within the tank and the molten fuel simply drains off and solidifies, harmlessly. It simply closes down.

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Thorium plants cooled with molten fluoride salt leave a fraction of the nuclear waste produced by uranium-fueled, water-cooled plants. While uranium waste is radioactive for tens of thousands of years, thorium’s radioactivity peters out within one or two centuries.

MORE EFFICIENT
Thorium is some 300-times as energy-efficient (mass for mass) as uranium. As well, 99% of thorium is burned off – compared with a mere 0.05% – 3% of uranium.

CHEAP TO OPERATE
Thorium reactors are cost-competitive compared with coal-fired stations.

SMALLER
The thorium-based molten salt reactor has a smaller footprint than a conventional nuclear plant. Therefore, thorium reactors can serve comparatively small and dispersed communities.

DOES NOT PRODUCE A-WEAPON MATERIALS
Producing material for atomic weapons is almost impossible – making proliferation much easier to sustain.

It should be noted that India, China and the Czech Republic are already building thorium-fuelled test reactors.

By: Ron Wyckoff

Ron Wyckoff — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:49:29 +0000

For a review of what’s been going on in the Lenr field since Pons and F. try this slide show by a Dutch Engineer. It’s hard to say if we are seeing something real or some Global Internet frenzy that is feeding on itself causing anybody working in this field to panic and start submitting patents, forming companys, and casting disparaging comments on everybody else. But, it sure is interresting to watch. Should know in the next 6 months if this is real.

http://www.lenrweb.com/

By: Editor

Editor — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:06:11 +0000

“free wireless energy from the ionosphere”: please provide a reference to a science journal. Some of Tesla’s later ideas published in popular magazines were shown to be nonsense.

By: Rob Larson

Rob Larson — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:38:26 +0000

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that the reason nuclear power is so dangerous is because it’s based no only on tech that’s at least 30 years old, if not 40; but that they were also built to provide fuel for nuclear weapons? There are plenty of ways to build nuclear reactors that cannot be used to make weapons and have little to no danger of meltdown and radioactive contamination. If Japan had updated their reactors they wouldn’t be faced with the threat of Fukushima today.

By: Bennie Beaver

Bennie Beaver — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:05:06 +0000

I’m unconventional in believing that energy and health care must and will become essentially free in a coming singularity of evolution. I keep reading about ideas such as cold fusion even being researched by NASA. There are a myriad of ideas out there. One will be developed in the next 30 years. Let’s get those ideas on the market sooner, before society goes broke in this for-profit economy over basic necessities. There are enough luxuries to compete over in a for-profit system. Competition over basic necessities will come to an end soon, or the human race will come to an end soon!

By: Marcos Marin

Marcos Marin — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:29:43 +0000

They should think small, very small. :-) At least at first, to ease the market away from this prejudice. I could certainly use a less idiotic “battery” than current ones…
hehe, the bulk of it should be shock and violation resistance, lol

By: Saša

Saša — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:03:15 +0000

I dont understand why we dont apply Teslas free wireless energy from the ionosphere solution to the energy problem. We dont need to come up with a new way to provide energy just because you cant put a meter on the solution we have.

By: Rodavure

Rodavure — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:54:51 +0000

Earthquakes would have little effect on a stabalized rig, which is a requirement for licensing. Terra also uses strontium reactors, not uranium. So, even id there was a problem, the reactor would be 100% safe.

By: melajara

melajara — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:51:30 +0000

I agree with nuclear energy provided we forget about the evil and wasteful fission and invest in fusion reactors.

Unfortunately, for the past 30 years we are always told “it’s the future but at least 30 years away”, very anticlimactic and antisingularitarian!

By: Thomas Idzikowski

Thomas Idzikowski — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:51:08 +0000

Wow, you haven’t even seen what the technology looks like and you’re already bashing it. You should look at their website and the open designs they are sharing with the government and the public instead of having a knee-jerk reaction. I’m not just being a fanboy in saying that Nathan Myhrvold is already known as a genius – he has a list of real credentials, actual inventions, patents, etc.. as long as your arm. This has the potential to change how we view nuclear power over the next 100 years and vastly improve the picture for nuclear waste cleanup. Every year the world is beholden to unstable or aggressive petrol states is another unstable year for the world. We need to change the power generation mix of the world and create a better future, this technology has the potential to do just that.

By: trakk

trakk — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:29:04 +0000

He is the owner of nuclear power company…so he will say good things about nuclear power.

One powerful earthquake and a nuclear reactor will turn from a boon to a bane.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:48:15 +0000

Why the hell are you quoting Nathan Myhrvold? He runs the largest patent trolling operation in the world. There isn’t a single living person that has been worse for technological advancement than him. His lab is a sham, and you should know better than to relay anything he says.

By: Buck

Buck — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:02:25 +0000

Solar is the future, not nuclear.

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:35:16 +0000

I’d rather see a step forward than a step back. Although nuclear has great potential as a bridge till other methods are more viable. I think space based solar has emense potential. It can also be utilized to attenuate incoming solar energy and thusly reduce the effects of global warming. It’s a daunting challenge but so is clean nuclear. Nuclear has a bad stigma associated with it and so it will be an uphill battle. Every step we take into space helps us with the future.