Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment First, GP needs to support "Nuclear 2.0" (Score 1) 252

Frankly, I think GreenPeace is BROKEN...

Can anyone tell me how much LESS CO2 will be emitted into our atmosphere, ie, due to GP's pressuring Lego to stop with these marketing tasks?!?

So, what should GreenPeace be doing INSTEAD, in our opinion...?

Well, here are some ideas, off the top of my head:

1. call for enegy-intensive Fusion R&D to STOP, ie, UNTIL all of its energy needs are met with zero-emission "Nuclear 2.0" energy (ie, from Molten Salt Reactor (MSRs), preferably Energy from Thorium from Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)

2. Openly DEBATE whether or not an Anti-Nuclear policy (by environmental groups) still makes any sense, ie, in light of proven FEATURE of "Nuclear 2.0", the new / old Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technologies, which seem to already be in the pipeline.

(See YouTube video "Nuclear in Alberta..." on Dr David Le Blanc's company's expectation that smaller, transportable MSRs will
be both Approved (for use in Canada) & Operational (at least providing process heat... WITHIN 6 - 8 YEARS).

Old nukes need replacements, we know MSRs are the safer alternative nuke designs & a growing number of knowledgeable people are already supporting work to help bring "Nuclear 2.0" into existence & practical use.

Oil-rich Norway has created a Thorium Research Lab.

China & India have committed to constructing prototype "Nuclear 2.0" reactors.

Taiwan seems to be aiming for a [Thorium-based] heat engine.

PS If "Nuclear 2.0" ISN'T (for you) the way to go forward, what is & why? Thanks.

Comment Lack of Focus on Planet's Health Needs, maybe... (Score 1) 203

Fusion research seems to get all the Gov't $$$ it needs, & uses all the energy it needs, even when it comes from fossil fuel powered energy plants...

While USA's Energy from Thorium, Molten Salt Reactors & Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors - which could produce 100% green energy - for Fusion & lots more users across the planet.

Much basic & applied work supporting MSR & LFTR work was done in the 1950's, so perhaps it's not to be "sexy" enough to draw funding today.

It may be unethical to run (Gov't-funded) "mega-energy-consuming-projects" like Fusion, eg, as CO2 levels & storm-activity continue to rise, hand-in-hhand.

We need Ethical Committees (like those whose approval is needed when humans are involved in medical trials) to decide whether such mega' projects as Fusion should be put on HOLD, pending implementation of 100% green energy sources, like Energy from Thorium, that is long overdue.

While it's nice that a Canadian company found funding from some mining companyl who'd have to burn a lot of natural gas, if they don't get heat from the company's (coming) small, transportable Molten Salt Reactors, in the coming 6+ years.

But USA has wasted too much $$$ on war-making & Fusion R&D, that could have brought MSRs & LFTRs into implementation decades ago... This is not to say it can't / shouldn't do so NOW. It should!

Lots of people feel strongly about this. More media focus & more people pushing their politicians, at all levels, to re-focus Science R&D on "finishing the work" begun by Alvin Weinberg, so long ago.

Comment Embrace "Energy from Thorium" (LFTR); drop Fusion (Score 1) 196

R&D into Fusion is -not- "too big [in $$$ spent] to fail"

I don't get WHY we've embraced high-cost Fusion
for as long as we have, ie, while continuing to ignore
-proven- Energy from Thorium's cost-effectiveness,
energy-efficiency & very low waste production advan-
tages over sloppy current (ie, "Nuclear 1.0") nuclear
technologies, especially after Fukushima's proof of
its relatively unsafe nature.

CURRENT "best" nuclear reactor designs give only:

a. excessively high construction (& financing) costs
b. low levels of safety, even w/best human operator
c. high costs for (solid) fuel-rods (zero $ in LFTRs)
d. 1% of fuel-rods' energy used, when pulled out
e. costly reactor down-times to change fuel-rods
f. much more costly spent-fuel waste by volume & $$
g. higher proliferation risk, due to plutonium in waste
h. high cooling-water usage (also restricts location)
i. low temp. output means inefficient electricity gen'n
j. costly security req'ts dictate fixed-location plants
k. reputation for poor decision-making, at each step

EfT's Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors offer us:

a. lower construction costs (low operating pressure)
b. intrinsic safety (they're"walk-away safe")
c. no needs for any fuel-rods at all
d. about 99% fuel utilization: & can eat "spent-fuel"
e. shorter shutdowns possible, but unnecessary
f. much less waste produced; reduces "old" waste
g. reduced proliferation risk; no weapons grade Pu
h. needs NO scarce water (locate "anywhere")
i. high temp. output means efficient electricity gen'n
j. cost-effective factory-made & modular options
k. genuine pride in design excellence & efficiency

Community-driven push for new LFTR-enabling
regulations & gov't support for R&D funding for
Energy from Thorium (LFTRs), more modular
LFTRs (meaning less need for costly grid infra-
structure & transmission costs & energy losses).

In short, an opportunity of a Lifetime for cheap,
reliable, safe, & "peace-conducive" energy, that
would get us back on-track towards "increased
quality of Life for the next generation."

So, "Nuclear 2.0" Energy from Thorium (LFTRs)
seems good to me. :-)

Comment How NSA can become unknowing mob executioners (Score 1) 202

So, there could arise a market for "[recently] used terrorists' 9tSIM cards"
(Terrorists might see 2 incentives for selling their old SIMs into it - at
least if they're very mobile: reduce chance of being killed & some easy $$).

Who'd buy?

Well, anyone wanting soneone -else- dead; instead of paying a high-priced
professional killer, all that person would need to do (theoretically) is to:

1. buy such a SIM & a cheap phone [equipped with GPS]
2. plant phone (with the SIM installed) into target's briefcase, etc.
3. await news of target's "death by CIA"

This is yet another reason to -stop- these pre-trial killings by CIA, et al.
We have enough geniune "collateral damage" already, without the above.

Comment Re:Ups & Downs - I now like Samsung's "slownes (Score 1) 324

So, since reading this news item about 4.4.2, we've had to Power Off & shelve a fleet of Nexus 7's that have just self-updated to 4.4.2.

But we were -lucky- to have [remnants of] an older fleet - made by Samsung - on-hand, that we'd -almost- forgotten about, ie, after noticing Samsung's "slowness" to release Android upgrades. We -had- a dangerous habit of "only the latest will do" but have quickly come to appreciate Samsung...

Now, we wonder if our Korean friends there weren't just doing -tests- for privacy / security downgrades, in Android... and holding back the "latest" versions, until they notice -restoration- of our privacy / security levels. Perhaps a fiction... but... it was really nice to find some Samsung Android 4.1.2 devices near at hand, this morning. :-)

Comment Temporary, but Costly W'around as we wait 4 Google (Score 1) 324

[ Could this privacy / security downgrade be NSA inspired? Could Apple's products be next to follow? ]

1. Turn OFF all Android 4.4.2 devices - [ Could be inconvenient, particularly for phones & phablets. ]
2. Don't allow any other devices to [Auto-]Update to 4.4.2
3. Find -older- devices to replace those Turned OFF (in Step 1) - [ Could be costly, if you don't have old devices on-hand. ]
4. Remove installed [Google-] apps' updates.
5. Wait for Goggle to notice [hopefully, FAR] FEWER 4.4.2 systems online (assuming they can't switch them back On...)
        and to decide to -lift- their game, before we have to -seriously- consider migrating to Apple...

(Any additional suggestions would be most welcome.)

We had some unopened [backup] devices on-hand, purchased at discount, after release of newer models.

PS We now appreciate Samsung's "slowness" to release system updates... maybe they quietly test each one & wait for tests to indicate no reduction of privacy / security features, before passing them on to us...? I -hope- so, we do -not- know for sure.

Comment They will soon... LFTRs for Energy from Thorium... (Score 1) 326

From the first talk we viewed on EfT, we were intreagued... Safe Nuclear Energy? (Cf Kindle eBook: "Nuclear 2.0" We paid ~ $2 for it at; YMMV).

Instead of costly solid fuel rods (only ~ 2% of whose energy is used before they're sent to costly storage), liquid fueled reactors need no such rods. Instead, their liquid fuel (about 98% of whose energy) is used.

The LFTR is just one of the several designs being discussed. Some want ASD's in their designs, ie, with an Accelorator in the picture. (I'm sure still other designs will be proposed, possibly incorporating something else that a particular physicist knows well enough to build into it.)

There's plenty of time to innovate, discuss, simulate & build prototypes... Join in the Fun (Did he say Fun?!?) & games of designing safe nuclear power plants, for a change.

Don't let Fukushima's disaster send the baby (nuclear industry) out with the bathwater (a particular design, used at Fukushima)!

We didn't stop sending shuttles, etc. up to the ISS, ie, even after 2 losses! So, let's not let the greenest energy source get away from us... Embrace Next Gen Nuclear Energy, eg, LFTRs = Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.

Comment Will this include "commercial extremists"? (Score 1) 208

So, Energy from Thorium (promoted, in part, by an international group, which just concluded its 2013 Conference, at CERN, in Geneva) could be deemed as a -commercially- extreme concept, eg, since - if/when Thorium-/LFTR-based nuclear power (cf the recently released eBook "Nuclear 2.0") begins to replace fossil-fueled & even Uranium-based powe plants - a number of well-endowed commercial interests may feel unduly threatened by EfT.

Could the info & organisations who would like to bring EfT -sooner- into pur energy markets be deemed "extremists" & see their web sites, etc. get blocked 8n the UK, etc.?

Comment Better: Invest in R&D + Educ on Enegry fr Thor (Score 1) 282

Especially if the energy used to make a PV Solar Cell is still -less- than the amount it's expected to produce, over its lifetime, PV solar energy might not be the best choice of sustainable energy to invest in.

(Batteries for -local- storage of electrical energy might be good, eg, as anything that disconnects one's home or office from mains power is a problem almost anywhere.)

In a post-Fukishima world, the EC - if not [also] Germany - should be investing in Energy from Thorium (eg, developing improvements of its proven technology from the 1950's, which even Germany has successfully trialed in the 1960's or the 1980's, I understand).

For many of the reasons (ie, features), cf Prof Dr Eduardo Greaves' [36-min.] talk "Thorium as Nuclear Fuel in Molten Salt Reactors" (on (The impatient can search for Sorensen's 10-min talk & view at least its last 5 min's.)

R&D should run in parallel with Education & Debate, in the hopes that the Public will soon "get" that there are several types of reactor, some (eg, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors = LFTRs) being much -safer- than Fukushima's reactors proved to be.

We should all understand the differences between even Canada's (long ago) improved CanDo reactors (still in the same "safety class" as Fukushima's, I understand) -and- LFTRs, which are expected to be not only "walk-away safe" but also cheaper to build & run.

After people come to understand the significant differences & inherent advantages in the design of LFTRs (and their safety levels are verified in ways that give all peoples confidence to embrace them, even near their back yards), we'll be able to make another great stride in our energy technology that can enable us to:

1. reduce CO2 emissions, & also turn back Climate Change that appears to be caused by it

2. enable any & all nations to build & use LFTR-technology - instead of current Plutonium-producing reactors, that we limit today

3. reduce the amount & cost of spent-fuel storage, eg, by consuming that fuel & getting energy from what was once waste

4. reduce or even eliminate "oil wars"

5. enabling us to -stop- "fracking" for Shale Oil &/or Coal-Seam Gas (CSG), which destroys water & land resources

6. reduce internal conflicts within nations (eg, legal battles & protests over "fracking")

7. redirect our minds to innovative & exploratory projects, in Science, Medicine, Space, Community Development, etc.

I see only win-win's from Energy from Thorium... are there any risks or disadvantages?

Let the debate continue, eg, in you comments & replies.

Slashdot Top Deals

A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner