Removing fuel from a running reactor, and thinking no one will notice, is insane. Thinking you're going to be able to remove weapon grade material from a running reactor is beyond insane. Once that reactor reaches critical there's going to be all kinds of interesting isotopes created. The plutonium will quickly be contaminated with Pu-240 and the uranium contaminated with U-232.

Same goes for MSR. The operators of the reactor are not going to remove any fuel until they can sustain a critical state with bred U-233. That will take about a year. Taking out any fuel before then is going to make a noticeable drop in power output. That fuel is hot enough to melt aluminum and most common steels. It will also be contaminated with isotopes that are gamma emitters, easily detectable from vast distances.

If the Pu-239 is going to be stolen it's going to be before it gets to the reactor, that holds true for MSR and MOX.

That's nice, Pu-239 and Pu-240 is reduced in MOX fueled reactors. In MSRs the Pu-239 and Pu-240 is destroyed, it never leaves the reactor.

LFTR does not produce Pu-238 in significant quantity. It produces enough to be financially advantageous to extract. My point is that any plutonium that is produced will peak at Pu-238, it will rarely get heavier since Pu-239 and Pu-241 are so readily fissile.

Your claims of stealing Pu-239 from MSRs makes as much sense as stealing it from MOX fueled plants. The difference is that getting Pu-239 from MSRs is near impossible. All the Pu-239 we have right now came from solid fuel reactors like those fueled with MOX. This feature is why the MSR technology was not pursued, the reactors were worthless for producing weapon grade material.

Everything you say about MOX fuel in conventional reactors also applies to LFTR. So long as there is enough U-235, or U-233, to offset the presence of the Pu-240 the LFTR will have sufficient neutrons to get critical. The nice thing about LFTR is that it avoids the requirement for expensive fuel processing, the fuel does not have to be manufactured into pellets.

The problem with currently used reactors is that once the fuel is spent it must be disposed of or processed again. LFTR, as most every MSR, the fuel is never "spent" but is continually processed. The plutonium would never leave the reactor once put in. With currently used designs the spent fuel, even if started with MOX, will contain more plutonium than what was put in. Not effective for destroying plutonium.

LFTR does produce some plutonium but the majority of it will be the valuable Pu-238. It's worthless for bombs but very useful in RTGs. MOX fuel contains U-238, which makes more "bad" Pu-239. LFTRs do not contain any U-238, so any plutonium it produces will tend toward the "good" Pu-238.

Ignore LFTR then. We have shown that molten salt reactors can burn a mixture of U-233, U-235, and Pu-239. Burning any one of them alone in the reactor does not take a leap of faith even if not shown experimentally.

What alternatives do we have? What alternatives make sense? Making economic sense would likely be a big factor in the choices. We can leave the plutonium sit. It can sit in ready made bombs that can be stolen. It can sit in spent PWR fuel where the plutonium is essentially refining itself into weapon grade material, making it more valuable to anyone that wants to make weapons the longer it sits. We can reprocess it into MOX, an expensive process for reactors that are getting to be fewer and older. My favorite is to put that plutonium in shiny new MSR reactors where the processing of the weapon cores, and spent PWR fuel, is cheap and easy.

What is more expensive in the long term? Keeping the plutonium under continuous guard for the next billion years? Or, guard it only so long as it takes to burn it up in a reactor?

The plutonium already exists. If the concern is to remove the risk of the plutonium being used against us in a weapon then the only way to remove that risk completely is to destroy the plutonium. The only means we have to destroy the plutonium is to burn it in a reactor. It's not like the government is just going to hand this stuff over to the private corporations, they will still watch it. The difference is that once in a reactor the plutonium is no longer weapon grade, it will be contaminated very quickly.

Getting back to LFTR. It does not require Pu-239 to start the reaction, it is only one option. That Pu-239 does not have to be weapon grade, it can be down blended just like it is now for MOX fuel. The difference between PWRs and MSRs is that the fuel does not require an expensive manufacturing process. Putting the plutonium in MOX fuel is a good idea. Putting that plutonium in MSRs is a better idea. Leaving the plutonium sit until it all decays away in a couple billion years is a bad idea.

Are you serious? Nuclear powered aircraft? I can see nuclear powered ships, even trains, but not anything that flies. Nuclear power gets more efficient the bigger it is. That makes it perfect for things like ships at sea. The bigger the ship the less material it takes for the cargo carried. The bigger the ship the less crew needed for the cargo carried. The bigger the ship the smoother the ride. That is why we already have nuclear powered ships at sea.

Things that need to be fast need to be light. Radiation shielding is heavy. A light and fast nuclear powered aircraft can be made if the passengers don't mind the radiation.

I believe it has been tested for real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Do you believe that anyone can keep an industrial level plutonium purification process secret for long? Wouldn't you think that both the government and the private corporation would be highly motivated to make sure that no fissile material leaves the reactor site? The nice thing about using plutonium as fuel is that it has value now. Currently plutonium is worthless except to those that want to make bombs from it. People tend to not care if worthless things go missing.

Another nice thing about using plutonium as fuel is that it is destroyed in the process. We're ridding the world of plutonium, removing the threat of it being stolen to be used in bombs. Any new plutonium created in MSRs will remain in the reactor until it is burned as fuel. If anyone is going to steal plutonium after nuclear reactors becomes the norm then it is likely to be stolen to be used as fuel. It has a much higher value as fuel then as a weapon. Dynamite is cheap and it does not take a team of nuclear scientists to produce it, form it into a weapon, and detonate it. If someone wants to blow up something then there are much easier ways to do that than build a plutonium bomb.

I have an alternative for you. Allow the people to possess the tools necessary for personal protection on their person at all times. These tools could take several forms, allow people to choose what works for them.

One tool is willingly allow recording. Let people put trackers on themselves and place the data in some sort of third party data store. In the event of a crime against them the data could be released by them or their advocate.

If we get the technology then we could have people with their own personal force fields.

What has shown to be effective, and inexpensive, is the common handgun. If muggers and rapists know that there is a high probability of getting shot for committing a violent act then crime goes down. Not only is it cheap and effective there is no tracking data for someone to abuse.

One problem we've seen with tracking technology is that the thugs figured out that if there are too many of them then they do not see any meaningful punishment. Getting caught for the crime is only an effective deterrent if they know they will be punished. Having armed law abiding citizens does carry the very effective deterrent of punishment.

How do you stop the government from placing cameras everywhere to track our movements? Easy, you see a government camera you smash it. Tell everyone you meet to do the same. If enough people do this then the government can't replace them fast enough. If people get arrested for it then demand a trial by jury. If the jury is equally pissed off about the cameras then no one gets a conviction. Vote for people that won't put cameras everywhere.

If none of that works then what you have is the police arresting everyone that smashes a camera. Because they know a jury will not convict then these people have "unfortunate accidents" while "resisting arrest" and due to "unforeseen traffic conditions" they die in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. What happens then is open war by the government on the citizens. At that point we stop breaking cameras and start breaking skulls.

In other words, use the four boxes of liberty. Soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge boxes. Use them in that order, starting now.

Use of the ballot box should be sufficient. If these elected officials cannot stop themselves from spying on the people that voted them into office then they should not be surprised when they get dragged from office feet first.

I went to the extreme of pointing out the possible use of the fourth box of liberty only because I know that a government that spies on its citizens is inevitably doing more than just spying. They spy for a reason. They spy so they can act against us. They govern only with the permission of the governed. Once permission is removed those that govern can step down on their own power, or not. They get to choose. If they choose poorly then they leave public office feet first.

I will agree for the moment that only government can internalize the externalities because it has little relevance to my argument. Who does it is irrelevant as the result is the same.

First we need to define the externalities. It can be defined as the CO2 output itself, or the net effect on the atmosphere. If we define it as the CO2 output then we'd internalize it by building systems that can reverse the process. This system must be able to draw the CO2 out of the air without adding more or causing some other economic or environmental hazard. The treatment of the net effect on the atmosphere can be done in a number of ways such as using taxation to divert funds from those burning the oil to those affected so that they can perform the tasks needed to reverse or minimize the effects.

One way these people can minimize the CO2 damage is to build dikes to hold back the rising sea levels, develop machines to spread water vapor or particulates into the air to reflect back solar rays. Or these people can take the money to implement the first solution, pull CO2 out of the air. Which ever means they decide upon will require power. Using oil, coal, or natural gas to power this will only make the problem worse. These processes will take, barring some very interesting physics, more energy than that produced from the carbon producing energy sources. The laws of thermodynamics are against us.

So we will need an energy source that consumes CO2 and produces nothing that would be detrimental to society or the environment, and do so at a cost on par with burning that oil. I believe we have such a technology by pairing up waste annihilating molten salt reactors and jet fuel from seawater converters. As these two technologies together we can build an infrastructure that produces energy in a form that we can use to power our battleships, bombers, and battle tanks. By products include pure oxygen, fresh water, helium, and radioactive isotopes needed for medicine and space exploration. Inputs to the system includes seawater, municipal waste water, spent nuclear fuel from LWR power plants, and thorium. We have plenty of these and they cost next to nothing.

Do we internalize the externalities by taxing oil? No. We must continue the subsidies to make sure our ability to defend our nation continues. What we can do is shift the subsidies from the oil taken out of the ground to the oil we can create from seawater. After enough time passes we won't need to drill for oil, it will be cheaper to produce it. Any CO2 produced from burning it goes into the environment where it gets collected again for producing more jet fuel.

Only nuclear power can do this. We don't have the technology to make solar or wind produce the heat needed to make it work, or with the reliability to make it cheap. I've been assured by some very smart people that this technology works and can be done cheaply enough to compete with current oil, coal, and nuclear. The problem is that the federal government does not see this the same way. They've been doing energy the same way for fifty years. To change their mind will take education and a desire to act. The government talks a lot about acting but they don't seem to have the desire.

The federal government is not taking climate change seriously. As much as these politicians bitch and moan about how nothing is done about it they have no one to blame but themselves.

As I see it the federal government regulations are preventing research into alternative energy. There's so many regulations that if someone so much as sneezes a dozens forms have to be filled out. I'm not suggesting that the government allow people to pollute rivers in the name of scientific advancement. I'm saying the government is taking safety above all else, to the point they will allow our house to burn down so as not to create a tripping hazard with the water hose.

One example is that I believe Prohibition set back bio-fuel development at least fifty years. Prior to Prohibition it was not uncommon for farmers to turn a portion of their crop into alcohol for their tractors. While Prohibition no longer exists the regulations on alcohol production are such that anyone that wants to do research on it will have to have a full time lawyer to keep the BATFE from throwing them all in prison.

Even though we have seen considerable advances in nuclear power there is only so much that can be simulated. The simulation is only as good as the data provided to it. If we want to see cheap safe and reliable nuclear power then we will need actual production size reactors built. They will not be perfect, there is always the possibility of something going terribly wrong. This gets to my earlier analogy, nuclear power is the water hose that can put out the climate change fire. Yes, we might trip over it and bust our heads on the ground. We have to do something, the house is burning.

Yes. It's called the waste annihilating molten salt reactor, look it up.

Yes, let's remove the subsidies to oil companies. I completely agree. We should not subsidize oil, coal, or natural gas. Let these people pay their own costs for once.

Now, with that out of the way I will say that we should also remove subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, and geothermal. Let them pay their own costs for R&D. Let the market sort them out. These energy sources need to sink or swim on their own. We cannot afford to subsidize them forever.

It annoys me to no end how people will bring up oil subsidies as somehow keeping wind and solar from taking over the market. Here's a clue about wind and solar, you can't pour that stuff into an airplane and expect it to fly. We will be burning oil until it takes more energy to pump it out of the ground then what we get from burning it, and we will still be pumping it out of the ground for years after that. We burn oil because it has properties that no other energy source has, we can pour it into a tank and expect it to stay there.

Do I think that we should subsidize oil because it has these wonderful properties? No. What I do think is that the federal government realizes that current battleships, bombers, and jeeps run on oil. To keep them running means making sure the infrastructure for that oil exists and has sufficient capacity. An easy way to do that is to give them money. That does not make it right, it's just how the world works right now.

Unless you are implying a shift to nuclear power this shift to energy production that will last longer than fossil fuels will hamstring society.

The technologies we have available to us right now make nuclear, coal, natural gas, and hydro the cheapest energy production we have. Those energy sources are roughly the same cost per kWh. Everything else, wind, solar, geothermal, cost at least twice as much. Doubling the price of electricity would have a disastrous effect on the economy and our standard of living. The price of everything would go up since everything relies on energy.

As of right now the only option we have that would reduce carbon output, provide reliable energy production, and do so at a price on parity with coal, is nuclear power.

You mean the same government that removed my ability to purchase inexpensive incandescent light bulbs? The government that made CFL bulbs the only replacement I can find on store shelves? CFL bulbs that contain mercury?

I can hear it now, "but what about all the mercury from burning coal?" Well, we would not have that mercury if the government didn't make building nuclear power plants near impossible to do.

That is just an example. An example that may not apply any more that LED lighting is becoming cheaper and new nuclear power plants are getting built. Point is that the government does not always have my best interests in mind, or does not appear to based on how I interpret the dangers in my life. Other examples, gun control laws that don't actually reduce crime. Child booster seat laws that don't make children safer. Drug control laws that make getting effective medication difficult or impossible. "Green" energy laws that do not actually reduce carbon output.

Then there also laws that do not effect my safety but do make my life less convenient or less comfortable. With that out of the way I will state that we need government. I fear a world without government. I just belief that a government governs best when it governs least.

The government does great things to keep me safe. The problem is that sometimes they get it wrong. The solution is not to dissolve the government. The solution is a government that rules based on real evidence and with an eye on unintended consequences. I like that the government funds research on things like pollution and how chemicals affect our bodies. I like it when they make recommendations based on what they find. There are just a lot of times where I think the government should not be making laws prohibiting activity. There are just too many times where I see unintended consequences or the government acting outside of their authority.

What do you mean by "changing passwords on a regular basis"? Do you mean that they should be changing passwords regularly or that they are not?

There is significant evidence that requiring people to change passwords, outside of the belief the password was compromised, is a very bad idea. Changing passwords regularly cause people to forget them, causing people to write them down so they don't forget them. This also creates an issue where people, users and administrators, use public or other readily available information to reset passwords.

We need to get rid of this idea that changing passwords regularly increases security, it does the opposite.

While investigating options for going back to school I found that a university not far from me offers something like you describe. If you have a BS/BA from them they will allow adding majors to your degree after the fact. At least that is how I understand it. I assume other colleges and universities have similar policies. What it does is allow one to return to the university and take classes there after graduating, once one has satisfactorily met the requirements of the second major their transcript would be updated to state a second major was met for the degree.

If someone wants to just take courses in the same major they graduated with years prior there would not be a piece of paper reflecting that outside of the transcript. I'd think that would be sufficient for employers.

Certification entities like CompTIA require continuing education. Keeping current means presenting proof of continuing education. I assume college courses relevant to the certification would be acceptable for continuing education. Perhaps what you are saying is that colleges and universities need to coordinate with certification entities to make this seamless and worthwhile (generally translated as profitable) for everyone. Perhaps colleges and universities could get in the business of offering certifications directly.

I'm thinking that what you suggest is being offered, just not by the traditional education system, or perhaps just not in the exact form that you describe.