I feel the same way about dollar general. jk! that shit is blight!

The variable you are neglecting to consider is transmission losses.

Look into super-conducting cables. So far, only Germany has managed to get a 1km long super-conducting cable in place for a still tiny % of the energy necessary to make this global grid work in the way you're talking about.

1/3 Local nukes+1/3 wind+ 1/3 solar > coal

By guided tour they mean 11 pictures of piles of trash and 2 pictures of the outside of the plant. From a distance.

Seriously, where are the shots of the reactors? The end product?

What solvents does it use? Is it done in a vacuum?

The DFR has a negative void coefficient...More heat == less reactivity, you actually have to actively pump the coolant loop to get it up to 1.5GW, otherwise it's in a very inefficent passive mode. No heat and the lead solidifies around the fuel loop.

Of course nuclear power doesn't seem viable if you look at it's current state! All the reactors we have now were designed in the '50s. They use water as a moderator (ie thermal neutrons) and coolant, requiring complex assemblies of fuel rods and control rods. Thermal neutrons also cause way more incidental nuclear waste (irradiated steel cores, wires, etc). They use
It doesn't have to be that way! The most recent design for a fast reactor seems to be the most legitimate and feasible new design to date. It's called the dual fluid reactor. http://dual-fluid-reactor.org/

It separates the fuel loop from the coolant loop. This has numerous advantages. You can alter the rate of either independently to best suit the current need. The coolant used isn't liquid sodium. Which, aside from not playing nice with air and water has a low boiling point and high neutron cross section. This reactor uses liquid lead as its coolant. Its so stable and resistant to radiation that the coolant loop can be piped into the non-containment area for power generation. In the papers I've read they mention coupling it to an MHR generator then a super-critical water loop en route to turbines.

It is engineered to run at 1000C, which at that temperature, makes it possible to do pyro-chemistry with electrodes to filter out the daught products in line with the fuel loop. The separated daughter products are then sent to a passive cooling chamber (the super short lived ones are hooked up to the coolant loop where it contributes to energy production) where they remain hella hot for a few hundred years. Then they become inert. There are supposedly lots of valuble metals after about 90 years that make the waste itself a hot commodity.

The reactor is designed to be a 2 meter cube, for simple production there are no bowed parts, only 90 angles with straight pipes. A reactor this size can put out 1500MW thermal.

Couple this with the recent advancement of laser-based particle accelerators and you wouldn't even have to start with enriched fuel! The power required to drive the laser would be
As Elon Musk would say (probably): Seriously guys, it's the 21st century, act like it!

Of course nuclear loses in this plan. They're only figuring in the economics of the current pressurized water 2% enriched dinosaur reactor types. Those are insanely expensive to run, not to mention inherently dangerous and able to melt down (albeit very very unlikely).

There should be an apollo-style program to get fast reactors online. One particular design that I've recently come across is the dual-fluid molten salt reactor. http://dual-fluid-reactor.org/

It addresses a lot of the problems the LFTR reactors have (like not using sodium as the coolant!) and it can provide a wide range of operation types from breeder to 'waste' incineration.

I would give my left nut to emigrate to The Netherlands. Maybe, just maybe, it's easier said than done?

My kingdom for mod points.

In the documentary, you were definitely made out to be the 'bad guy'. I'm sure reality was a bit more complicated than what the movie portrayed.

Have you and the challenger kept in touch? Are things more amicable than they were back then?

RTFA (I know, I know) -These have much higher levels of vitamin A

What would they do with the internet once they got it?

Nobody has brought up an obvious (to me I guess) consideration.

How would 'other 2/3' perceive the internet / computers in general in their cultural context.

Imagine a refugee camp where war torn peoples flock across a border and are placed into a predesignated area. Now (if it was Turkey*) they'd have all the basic amenities, food, shelter, water, plumbing...tv. What they are lacking (as far as I can tell) is any pervasive computer/internet. Consequently, boredom is one of the biggest problems in these refugee camps.

What if they all had the internet though?

What would they do with something of that magnitude that they've never had before? Would it become self-organizing? Would they require classes? If so, how in-depth? What if the literacy rates were low? Could small pictographic games still provide entertainment? Could MMOs (or whatever) provide a sense of purpose, if only virtual, to somebody's life?


Now take that microcosm and multiply it by 'the other 2/3'.

We need to approach this as a legitimate problem that is capable of being solved through research and refinement.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...

man, that went into the weeds fast.

I propose 'The Nuance' party!

Where does it stand on issue X?

It's complicated...check out this website that clearly lays out both sides of the issue and presents a conclusion with cited evidence.

I can dream, right?