Global Warming vs LFTR - Thorium Energy to fight Climate Change

[fireofenergy]

I want the thorium reactor! But...

Solar only has to be made in robotic factories because machines only require up front money and little maintenance. It should be GaAs in concentrating arrays. This would also help the cause for LFTR, Why? Because we still need to develop the proper battery to store (solar and LFTR) in electric cars.

That battery has already been developed! It's called the LiFePO4

We need to DEMAND its robotic manufacture (too) here in the good ole USA !!!!!!

[fireofenergy]

What's the deal about the subliminal message at about 16:00 ???

[yt2845]

@Jaysterdotcom Please learn some basic climate science. Water vapor levels are dependent on CO2 and CH4 levels, so your rant is pointless - besides demonstrating you never studied the topic you feel so passionate about.

[jaeLAX23]

@yt2845 And what's your point? Water holds heat yes, but that extra water vapor increases rain fall, therefore increases plant growth.

I like the idea of syngas to make cheap fuels, but an easier approach to lower CO2 if it started getting out of hand would be to increase agriculture. Crush rocks for their mineral content, pour over the ground, and desalinate water. An even easier & more practical approach would be AQUACULTURE, but radical environmentalist in government restrict this.

[jaeLAX23]

@yt2845 Furthermore aquaculture would increase other sea life, so the removal of CO2 from the air would be exponential. There would also be more food for us (fish).

What they are trying to do right now w/ algae fuels is foolish. I say that b/c they are attempting to grow it in fresh water, it would be more practical to just do it out in the sea in it's natural environment.

[gregreman]

A man like Kirk Sorenson just couldn't have happened by chance. lol

[Jaysterdotcom]

Why even talk about CO2? CO2 is not a pollutant and IS NOT contributing to Global Warming significantly. Any 5th grader given the task of doing a paper on Global Warming would come to the same conclusion.

Any ideas on what % of the atmosphere CO2 is? Any guesses? And while you are looking that up, what is the major Green House Gas?

Now......I am 100% on board with Thorium. This is the future folks but please don't throw in stupid talk about CO2 when talking about Thorium. Pure stupidity.

[OfficeThug]

@Jaysterdotcom The atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from 280 ppm to 388 ppm since the beginning of the industrial age. That's equivalent to an additional 1.81 watts of energy per square meter of the earth from Radiative Forcing. That's an atmospheric energy increase of 924 terrawatts, we consume 15 terrawatts globally in comparison.

Not a big fucking deal eh?

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug What's your point. The long term consequence is more rain fall, what's wrong w/ that? The climate is going to change regardless. It's been changing since the formation of earth itself.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 These cyclic increases take hundreds of thousands of years in nature, they have never occured within 200 short years. The rate at which this is occuring will not allow for sensitive species to adapt quickly enough, especially oceanic species, making mass extinction event inevitable.

For humans, climate will cause eratic weather events, increased desertification and flooding endangering water/food, as well as wider spread of tropical diseases farther up and down the equator.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "sensitive species" will die off regardless. And yes, LARGE increases in CO2 have occured quickly before when super volcanoes go off & volcanic activity was more frequent, & when asteroids hit.

And your assuming new energy tech won't emerge, when as you can see in the video above is an absurd assumption. Also, food production per capita increased this year and last. Even the IPCC reports state that an increase in 1-3 degrees will result in increased fertility.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 It would be nice if we didn't wipe out most of the species on earth before extracting atleast some of their chemicals for medicinal applications. There is a lot of potential for human longevity locked in diverse species. We are going to lose that potential if we do not control the situation. I don't think you understand how grave this is, or you are under some weird assumption that we will get more medicinal options down the line. Simply put, we won't in our lifetimes now.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "It would be nice if we didn't wipe out most of the species on earth before extracting atleast some of their chemicals for medicinal applications. "

I agree w/ u but government doesn't allow the people who care to own endangered animals, plants, insects, or microbes. Government mandates are not the answer to our energy problems & bureaucrats pay lip service to caring for the environment but couldn't care less about it. The private sector would solve it if it were allowed

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 The private sector has no reason to keep any promise or show any level of morality to anything. The only thing Private sectors care about is making money for themselves and their investors. Corporations are constructs, not people.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug And you are oh so very wrong about deregulation. Deregulation would drastically slow down globalization, which is the problem. All the regulations in place, environmental/business/financi­al, benefit the multi-national corporations. Deregulate & competition would arise & the local level, forcing big business to repatriate their overseas capital and remain local. Elimination of central banking would also put an end to nation building, another big source of waste.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 The US is litterally almost completely deregulated. Wall street traders and bankers can get away with running you over in their car no problem. They do much worse than that on a yearly basis, or are you completely ignoring the fact that now, officially, 1/2 of the US citizens are either impoverished or below the low-income rate line? But lo and behold, your current market is one of the most deregulated in US history.

Where's your Gen IV reactors?

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug Man your trying to hardest to deny reality aren't you. If we didn't have a central banking & fractional system the world wouldn't have it's current engineered economic crises. A free banking system would need SOME regulation yes, but only the banks. As it is right now businesses are way over-regulated.

/watch?v=Nz2N72O278Q

I've seen this personally, my cousin owns a small powder coating company and his cost of doing business went up ~25% this yr he recently told me.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 What's going to stop the larger coorporations from swallowing upstart companies whole once you rid them of their shackles? Instead of fully opening pandora's box, how about kicking the lobbyists out of the political grounds, abolishing coorporate personhood, and overseeing that banks, traders, and the larger coorporations play nice? That's what regulations could do for you.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "What's going to stop the larger coorporations from swallowing upstart companies whole once you rid them of their shackles? "

Larger corporation cannot swallow the upstart companies if those small businesses refuse to sell. It is only thru government intervention that a person is FORCED to sell their property.

And anyway, some monopolies are desirable. When Ford was the only name in the game it payed it's employees an equivalent of $2K/wk, after adjusting for inflation.

[jaeLAX23]

@jaeLAX23 Additionally, when ALCOA was the only name in the game aluminum was the cheapest it ever was and the miners were upper middle class rank.

Can monopolies get out of hand? Yes. Can people in a free society do something about it? Yes. New businesses can start up to provide competition or people can take action thru collective efforts (unionizing w/o union bosses), striking, boycotting, etc, etc. Also, no monopoly has ever lasted longer than a decade, unless govmnt enabled it.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 Unregulated corporations have ways of dealing with collective labor, see Union Busting.

Honestly, you are incredibly naive for thinking regular people alone have any sort of power in the face of incredibly wealthy elites and corporations. Civilized states have a government for a reason.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug Uh....did you not see the revolving doors I posted for you? And did you not see that monopolies IF they come about are more often than not a benefit as long as it's a private sector monopoly?

History is on my side of the argument. And union busting? Really? In this day & age of the internet & cameras on every cell phone such activity would become immediately evident. One of the greatest lesson history has for us is CONTROL(gov)=DANGER, MECHANISMS (pure markets)=SAFETY.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "Where's your Gen IV reactors?"

The only thing holding them back is the NRC & Dept of Energy. Kirk mentions in another video/blog that it's estimated to cost $1 billion to build the LFTR + $2 billion to pay off the worthless bureaucrats. Cost of paper work alone is $2 billion! That's what's called a regulatory hurdle.

That's why Bill Gates went to China to build his Traveling Wave Reactor. US does have other SMR plans but they suck. The NRC business model is a problem!

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 Finally, the IPCC makes no such reports on soils. If anything, the reports mention alarming coastal flooding of otherwise arable soils rendering them "dead zones" too salt-ridden for farming. In other cases there's reports of desertification and increased drought rate.

Native crops will have a very hard time surviving in these new conditions, even if you think they're "better". More water is not always a good thing for potatoes, for instance.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug I got that information from Alex Canaara & Robert Hargraves. The problem is going to be oceanic pH, not warming. Look on the side bar & find the videos yourself. Even then, privatizing the oceans would go along way to preserving aquatic life & enhancing aquatic life. Enhancing aquatic life provides a carbon sink. Agriculture allowed life to fluorish on land & aquaculture could do the same for marine life. But govmnt won't allow it.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 Environmental groups and scientists won't allow it either.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug Instead of wasting time worrying about climate change go out & inform people about the benefits of deregulation for both the environment & the economy. Then maybe we'd see LFTR out on the market this decade & ubiquitous farming so that everything is more local.

BTW, DDT is great for killing insects that spread disease. Thanks to radical environmentalism we can't use it anymore.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 Ad hominen is cute, I never said anything about DDTs. Quite the contrary, the right amounts can do a lot to stave off wasted crops and food ridden with diseases. I know this as a practitioning chemist that acknowledges statistics.

Deregulating the environment and the economy will only enable the current fossil fuel status quo and do little else. And I won't even get into why deregulating economies is a terrible idea, just look at the great depression and its aftermath.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug The great depression lasted so long b/c they kept monetizing the debt. Central banking & fractional reserve banking are too blame. Only when they stopped intervening did the economy stabilize. Stick to your chemistry cause you obviously know nothing of about banking & economics.

Deregulation & cutting subsidies would ensure that immature alternative tech wouldn't hit markets until they could compete w/ coal. Gen IV reactors would thus make it to market this decade.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 Right and you probably don't think powerful corporations have any way of destabilizing or completely erradicating competition before it even has a chance in a fully deregulated market. Spare me.

Also the level of state oversight before the recession was far lower than after the recession. The rate of intervention was raised after the recession had begun. Note that, governments only intervened into private affairs in significant ways AFTER everything fell apart.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "Spare me."

Do yourself a favor & go back to school. Get your information from somewhere other than the main stream media & newspapers. Learn how free markets work, and about the rule of law.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "Note that, governments only intervened into private affairs in significant ways AFTER everything fell apart."

You're not even looking into what caused the recession in the first place. Alan Greenspan was largely responsible for the internet bubble of the 90's. That bubble, & all bubbles, are caused by easy credit & expansion of the money supply. Regulations on BUSINESS don't do anything but prolong the agony. Regulations on banks is desirable but not on business.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 There are multiple factors that caused the great depression. State's switching around of currency didn't help, but even without that the depression would've happened.

The real problems happen once you allow traders to do whatever the hell they want. This is deregulation. For example, being able to buy unlimited long trade contracts AND renew your contracts is what caused the 2008 food crisis, and it's what's shooting your gas and energy prices through the roof.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug There is no "food crises". I've already told you food production/capita has been increasing every yr since the start of this century. Trade sanctions on the other hand can cause problems for some countries. The gas & energy price increases are the result of the war in the middle east. Iran is part of OPEC incase you didn't know. We've been bombing them for a decade & they are not happy about it. We sanction them, they sanction us, i.e. they increase our fuel prices.

[OfficeThug]

@jaeLAX23 As for business regulation, it depends on the practice and the business' needs. Of course we are going to need to regulate businesses to make sure they don't dump carcinogens, heavy metals, and halogenated compounds down the drain. We also need to make sure they aren't sabbotaging the economy through really terrible trade practices like "hoarding". Finally we need to make sure they stay the hell out of politics.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "Finally we need to make sure they stay the hell out of politics."

Then you don't deserve a vote either. I'm not saying I'm for corporate personhood, but you can't keep any individual from participating in politics just b/c they own a business. Like Benjamin Franklin said, since money & power are intrinsic to public office, then the only check is to LIMIT the influence of money in public office. A metallic standard would also solve many problems in this arena.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "As for business regulation..."

If judges & govmnt respected private property rights this would solve many problems w/ pollution. The market allow problems not covered by property rights to be addressed, for example water can be privatized, and you would then have direct control over the quality of your drinking water. If you still didn't feel safe after that then the market still has another solution for you, i.e. water filters.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug "sabbotaging the economy through really terrible trade practices like "hoarding""

Man you need a serious re-education. Stop buying the corporate propaganda. In PURE free markets hoarding is non-existent. 1) The "hoarders" will eventually need to sell whatever resources they own for their own survival (2) "hoarders" quickly go out of business b/c as soon as they get too greedy competition springs up to replace them.

[jaeLAX23]

@OfficeThug geke.us/

[bogusnachos]

Scenario 1, We launch a major program to rapidly develop LFTR and manufactured fuels with zero carbon cycle. In 40 years we have converted to cheap, clean, safe, inexhaustible domestic energy.

Scenario 2. We pursue renewables while China develops LFTRs. When we realize that renewables are a dead-end, we can buy (or probably lease) LFTRs from China along with the fuel they manufacture with LFTR energy.