911 Squared
Everyone who flies is subject to free cavity searches because of the
twin tower's terrorists. We concluded that our airlines were vulnerable.
Allow me to point out an even more notable vulnerability that would
make the twin towers look like a picnic.
All ~450 nuclear reactors in the world are one bomb away from being Fukishima scale environmental disasters. This is because the basis of their design accumulates phenomenal quantities of readily dispersible waste and all it takes to release it is to rupture the primary coolant system. You can't keep the fuel under water if the vessel won't hold water.
If the world is ever in a first-world shooting war, or if terrorists were to smuggle an artillery piece within 10 miles of a nuke plant, an enemy could and may very well threaten millions and lay waste to large areas of land. All because our government was used by some to impose an enormously expensive and recklessly unsafe reactor down the public throat rather than build a marvelously inexpensive, failsafe, ideal reactor. Every reactor in the country is an artillery shell away from being used as a collateral damage weapon against our own population all because our government was used to derail and sabotage nuclear energy. First the government gave itself sole authority to define nuclear energy and then selected only one design that arguably qualifies as the stupidest reactor design imaginable.
A CONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR REACTOR (CNR) can only utilize 1% of the uranium mined to fuel it. Think about that for a second; 1%!!! This begs the question; "Was nuclear energy sabotaged, perhaps to protect the market value of fossil fuel resources?" Who in their right mind would even consider building something so ridiculous, much less build an entire industry around it? It can be shown in simple terms that CNRs are one of, if not, the most dangerous and most expensive reactor design ever conceived and are the only reason the cost of nuclear generated electricity is not 10 times cheaper. Currently, the world spends $4 trillion/yr on electricity. Extrapolated back to the dawn of the nuclear age, the case can be made that the sabotaging of nuclear reactor design has resulted in overcharging the public in excess of $100 trillion in today's dollars.
To understand the claim that nuclear energy was sabotaged, one need only look at what a reactor is, what the operational characteristics are for a CNR and what the characteristics of an IDEAL NUCLEAR REACTOR (INR) could be. A reactor is a volume of space where the loss of neutrons due to leakage or parasitic absorption in non-fuel atoms equals the excess production of neutrons due to the absorption of a neutron in a nuclear fuel atom. Aside from maintaining a reaction, a power reactor must also remove the heat generated in the reaction. A CNR Packs the fuel in 80,000 rods inside a massive steam kettle and passes water across the rods. This foolish design means that a CNR can be used as a weapon of war against its own population and its $6B investment destroyed by nothing more than a ruptured coolant line. It is limited to a power production rate of 1 gigawatt electric (GWe), just the reactor costs $5 billion to build, it has lifetime fuel costs of at least $5B, it is only 1% fuel efficient, and it generates a lot of long-lived waste.
An INR is simply a fuel-and-coolant mixture inside a low-pressure tank that is circulated in and out of heat exchangers; just a tank containing a mixture. Because it contains only fuel mixed in coolant, ideally thorium powder in lead, it is optimized for both neutron economy and heat transfer. An INR cannot be used as a weapon against its own population because if it were bombed, the coolant would congeal and encapsulate the fuel and waste. It will not destroy itself under any circumstances, can produce dozens of times more power for the same size reactor vessel, could be built for as little as 100 times less than a CNR, has almost no operational or lifetime fuel costs, is 100% fuel efficient, and it generates at least 10 times less waste that is not long-lived.
The cost and operational comparisons are staggering. An INR would be at least 10 times cheaper than a CNR. For any who question that an INR can be as simple as a tank of fuel and coolant, I direct them to the THORIUM FLUORIDE REACTOR (TFR) or the '97 Tokaimura nuclear accident. The TFR is a liquid reactor and the Tokaimura accident was a mixture in a tank that became an unwanted reactor. However, the facts remain. Our government caused to be built an entire nuclear industry, based on a reactor originally designed to fit in a submarine, that can only utilize 1% of the uranium resource mined to fuel them, that gave us Fukishima, and in the event of war will give us hundreds of Fukishimas.
The most important comparison between a CNR and an INR is a CNR's vulnerability as a weapon of war. But then, a CNR was designed to have a meltdown characteristic. That is how they roused the rabble to get the public to reject nuclear energy as the ideal energy source that it is. Nuclear energy threatened their fossil energy holdings. Aside from building a reactor that is 1% resource efficient, who would choose to build a reactor design that has an inherent dooms-day characteristic if it is bombed, when an INR could be built 100 times cheaper and has no dooms-day characteristic? Who are these people? Fortunately, all these reactors could be converted to INRs for less than the cost of a single refueling outage. Hopefully we might be able to make this transition and immediately halve our electricity bill before we get in a real war.
I encourage the public to contact their representative and ask that they open a public inquiry into this matter. The only way the public is not going to have stupidly expensive wind and solar energy stuffed down their throats is if many individuals are willing to stand up and fight against the suppression of ultra-cheap and inherently safe nuclear energy. Either many of us fight for cheap energy or we'll just pay 20 times more for our electricity. There is no way that such a horrendous reactor design was selected by mistake. Some people did not want nuclear energy to succeed and they used the government to make sure it didn't. They didn't care how many lives would be put at risk or how much hardship it caused.
As if this derailment of nuclear energy wasn't bad enough. Now these same interests are using the power of the state to misinform the public about CO2. Although the CO2 concentration is equivalent to the length of an airport runway compared to a trip across country, atmospheric records are being falsified to push 3 to 5 times more expensive wind and solar energy onto the public. First they made nuclear unacceptable by building reactors that can melt down, so that 10 times more expensive fossil fuel would be used for electricity. Now they are demonizing fossil fuel to sell 3 times more expensive alternative energy that would be built in addition to a fossil fuel infrastructure. All the while, electricity that is fail-safe and nearly too cheap to meter, an IDEAL NUCLEAR REACTOR, is relegated to obscurity or indefinite 'research'.
If an investigation is ever done into the building of a 1%-fuel-efficient nuclear industry, it will show the enormity of the crime. There will be no defense and it really will lead to electricity that is almost too cheap to meter
All ~450 nuclear reactors in the world are one bomb away from being Fukishima scale environmental disasters. This is because the basis of their design accumulates phenomenal quantities of readily dispersible waste and all it takes to release it is to rupture the primary coolant system. You can't keep the fuel under water if the vessel won't hold water.
If the world is ever in a first-world shooting war, or if terrorists were to smuggle an artillery piece within 10 miles of a nuke plant, an enemy could and may very well threaten millions and lay waste to large areas of land. All because our government was used by some to impose an enormously expensive and recklessly unsafe reactor down the public throat rather than build a marvelously inexpensive, failsafe, ideal reactor. Every reactor in the country is an artillery shell away from being used as a collateral damage weapon against our own population all because our government was used to derail and sabotage nuclear energy. First the government gave itself sole authority to define nuclear energy and then selected only one design that arguably qualifies as the stupidest reactor design imaginable.
A CONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR REACTOR (CNR) can only utilize 1% of the uranium mined to fuel it. Think about that for a second; 1%!!! This begs the question; "Was nuclear energy sabotaged, perhaps to protect the market value of fossil fuel resources?" Who in their right mind would even consider building something so ridiculous, much less build an entire industry around it? It can be shown in simple terms that CNRs are one of, if not, the most dangerous and most expensive reactor design ever conceived and are the only reason the cost of nuclear generated electricity is not 10 times cheaper. Currently, the world spends $4 trillion/yr on electricity. Extrapolated back to the dawn of the nuclear age, the case can be made that the sabotaging of nuclear reactor design has resulted in overcharging the public in excess of $100 trillion in today's dollars.
To understand the claim that nuclear energy was sabotaged, one need only look at what a reactor is, what the operational characteristics are for a CNR and what the characteristics of an IDEAL NUCLEAR REACTOR (INR) could be. A reactor is a volume of space where the loss of neutrons due to leakage or parasitic absorption in non-fuel atoms equals the excess production of neutrons due to the absorption of a neutron in a nuclear fuel atom. Aside from maintaining a reaction, a power reactor must also remove the heat generated in the reaction. A CNR Packs the fuel in 80,000 rods inside a massive steam kettle and passes water across the rods. This foolish design means that a CNR can be used as a weapon of war against its own population and its $6B investment destroyed by nothing more than a ruptured coolant line. It is limited to a power production rate of 1 gigawatt electric (GWe), just the reactor costs $5 billion to build, it has lifetime fuel costs of at least $5B, it is only 1% fuel efficient, and it generates a lot of long-lived waste.
An INR is simply a fuel-and-coolant mixture inside a low-pressure tank that is circulated in and out of heat exchangers; just a tank containing a mixture. Because it contains only fuel mixed in coolant, ideally thorium powder in lead, it is optimized for both neutron economy and heat transfer. An INR cannot be used as a weapon against its own population because if it were bombed, the coolant would congeal and encapsulate the fuel and waste. It will not destroy itself under any circumstances, can produce dozens of times more power for the same size reactor vessel, could be built for as little as 100 times less than a CNR, has almost no operational or lifetime fuel costs, is 100% fuel efficient, and it generates at least 10 times less waste that is not long-lived.
The cost and operational comparisons are staggering. An INR would be at least 10 times cheaper than a CNR. For any who question that an INR can be as simple as a tank of fuel and coolant, I direct them to the THORIUM FLUORIDE REACTOR (TFR) or the '97 Tokaimura nuclear accident. The TFR is a liquid reactor and the Tokaimura accident was a mixture in a tank that became an unwanted reactor. However, the facts remain. Our government caused to be built an entire nuclear industry, based on a reactor originally designed to fit in a submarine, that can only utilize 1% of the uranium resource mined to fuel them, that gave us Fukishima, and in the event of war will give us hundreds of Fukishimas.
The most important comparison between a CNR and an INR is a CNR's vulnerability as a weapon of war. But then, a CNR was designed to have a meltdown characteristic. That is how they roused the rabble to get the public to reject nuclear energy as the ideal energy source that it is. Nuclear energy threatened their fossil energy holdings. Aside from building a reactor that is 1% resource efficient, who would choose to build a reactor design that has an inherent dooms-day characteristic if it is bombed, when an INR could be built 100 times cheaper and has no dooms-day characteristic? Who are these people? Fortunately, all these reactors could be converted to INRs for less than the cost of a single refueling outage. Hopefully we might be able to make this transition and immediately halve our electricity bill before we get in a real war.
I encourage the public to contact their representative and ask that they open a public inquiry into this matter. The only way the public is not going to have stupidly expensive wind and solar energy stuffed down their throats is if many individuals are willing to stand up and fight against the suppression of ultra-cheap and inherently safe nuclear energy. Either many of us fight for cheap energy or we'll just pay 20 times more for our electricity. There is no way that such a horrendous reactor design was selected by mistake. Some people did not want nuclear energy to succeed and they used the government to make sure it didn't. They didn't care how many lives would be put at risk or how much hardship it caused.
As if this derailment of nuclear energy wasn't bad enough. Now these same interests are using the power of the state to misinform the public about CO2. Although the CO2 concentration is equivalent to the length of an airport runway compared to a trip across country, atmospheric records are being falsified to push 3 to 5 times more expensive wind and solar energy onto the public. First they made nuclear unacceptable by building reactors that can melt down, so that 10 times more expensive fossil fuel would be used for electricity. Now they are demonizing fossil fuel to sell 3 times more expensive alternative energy that would be built in addition to a fossil fuel infrastructure. All the while, electricity that is fail-safe and nearly too cheap to meter, an IDEAL NUCLEAR REACTOR, is relegated to obscurity or indefinite 'research'.
If an investigation is ever done into the building of a 1%-fuel-efficient nuclear industry, it will show the enormity of the crime. There will be no defense and it really will lead to electricity that is almost too cheap to meter
Comments
Post a Comment