The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Green Privilege
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Environmentalism is the ideology of the young and the privileged:

Assessing stereotypes is the blog’s raison d’etre, remember.

Parenthetically, YouGov just changed the way it displays cross-tabs. “Others” are gone, and whites are broken down by sex and educational attainment but blacks and Hispanics are not.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Science • Tags: Environment, Polling 
Hide 72 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important, but I hate the way this question is phrased. I care greatly about the environment, and hate dumping poison into streams and spewing toxic waste into the atmosphere. But I am much less concerned about climate change, because I think thats much more difficult to control as a single nation, and also much harder to quantify whether or not its happening and why.

    • Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident
    @JackBNimble

    Exactly. Pollution and excessive use of plastic is the major issue, "climate change" is nothing to worry about. Land use and overbuilding could become worrisome as immigration continues to drive suburban sprawl and cheap housing.

    , @Jett Rucker
    @JackBNimble

    You really think some supra-national program might in some way favorably affect climate change? Cost-effectively?
    I guess you don't necessarily think it would be possible to implement any such supra-national program (you didn't say or imply that you did).

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @JackBNimble

    Anyone of any political persuasion who REALLY cares about the environment would be against huge population increases, such as we have with the immigration invasion. What say you, Democrats?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    , @Cloudbuster
    @JackBNimble

    I’m one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important

    I don't think that you are really that rare. Many -- most -- conservatives care about the environment, but "environmentalism" is entirely a trojan horse of the left and nobody wants to step into that trap.

    , @Lars Porsena
    @JackBNimble

    That's not environmentalism it's conservationism.

    At least, it's different enough to warrant a separate word. These modern environmentalists are on about something entirely different. The whole green/environmental movement is something completely different.

  2. Maybe in light of the reality of things, we could have some new categories: instead of “college-educated Whites” we could have “nonsense-believing Whites”. And instead of “non-college-educated whites” we could have “realistic whites”, or “whites who have been attacked by negroes” or “whites not yet hypnotized by Jews”.

  3. California has been having rolling blackouts.

    There’s “green” energy and reliable power, and nothing in between.

    This “environmental agenda” is about creating a new Dark Ages.

    Controlling people by making them “downsize” and unable to travel.

    The road to serfdom and a new attempt at Feudalism, I’d say.

    Destroying the West to set up a vast Labor Camp Police State.

    Taking away peoples’ real rights and giving them stupid “human rights”.

    Human rights were written by The Soviet Union and Marxists.

    Globalism is SLAVERY disguised as fake “rights” and phony “freedom”.

    • Agree: The Alarmist
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dr. Doom


    There’s “green” energy and reliable power, and nothing in between.
     
    Green energy is ludicrously unreliable and essentially worthless but it can be incredibly profitable. It's a great way for "green" corporations to help themselves to other people's money. There are people and corporations making an immense amount of money out of green energy and the fact that green energy doesn't work doesn't make it any less profitable.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @The Alarmist
    @Dr. Doom

    The road to serfdom is paved with good intentions.

    If you don’t already own the castle or manor house, then you are the serf, a reality lost on most rank-and-file green cultists who sit in their increasingly pricey rented digs in ‘sustainable’ conurbations.

  4. @Dr. Doom
    California has been having rolling blackouts.

    There's "green" energy and reliable power, and nothing in between.

    This "environmental agenda" is about creating a new Dark Ages.

    Controlling people by making them "downsize" and unable to travel.

    The road to serfdom and a new attempt at Feudalism, I'd say.

    Destroying the West to set up a vast Labor Camp Police State.

    Taking away peoples' real rights and giving them stupid "human rights".

    Human rights were written by The Soviet Union and Marxists.

    Globalism is SLAVERY disguised as fake "rights" and phony "freedom".

    Replies: @dfordoom, @The Alarmist

    There’s “green” energy and reliable power, and nothing in between.

    Green energy is ludicrously unreliable and essentially worthless but it can be incredibly profitable. It’s a great way for “green” corporations to help themselves to other people’s money. There are people and corporations making an immense amount of money out of green energy and the fact that green energy doesn’t work doesn’t make it any less profitable.

    • Agree: Twinkie, Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom

    If you can get government subsidies for every joule you put on the grid regardless of need, you can be profitable even if your product has negative value (see episodes of negative grid prices where "renewables" are big).

  5. Black Republicans give zero fucks about climate change!

    On the other hand, young, well-off White women are the devil.

  6. Educating women was a mistake

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Kent Nationalist

    Kind of a strange comment for this particular poll. Unless it's just a ceterum censeo thing you like to throw in regardless of a post's actual content. There are plenty of polls with striking sex differences. This one ain't really one of them. Educated white men aren't exactly covering themselves in glory.

  7. @dfordoom
    @Dr. Doom


    There’s “green” energy and reliable power, and nothing in between.
     
    Green energy is ludicrously unreliable and essentially worthless but it can be incredibly profitable. It's a great way for "green" corporations to help themselves to other people's money. There are people and corporations making an immense amount of money out of green energy and the fact that green energy doesn't work doesn't make it any less profitable.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    If you can get government subsidies for every joule you put on the grid regardless of need, you can be profitable even if your product has negative value (see episodes of negative grid prices where “renewables” are big).

  8. Environment* is the ______ of the young and the privileged:

    Of course, modern environmentalism is embraced by youths who have little knowledge of or real appreciation of nature. However, more broadly, the environment is what we arise from and what makes us feel most alive and so, when we have strong desire or means (the young and privileged), we seek it out. Gardens, whether English or Chinese, attempt to corral and perfect nature, but ultimately they seek to answer for us the questions we ask ourselves about why nature is so compelling.

    Rather than complete disparagement, we ask what we have to learn from this fact that the young and privileged prefer environmentalism.

    • Replies: @John Achterhof
    @Chrisnonymous

    Wonderful trailer. Environmentalism certainly has a romantic appeal - the beauty of nature touches the soul. There's also a practicality to it in that the earth's biosphere is the ultimate source of all the wealth we humans depend on for quality of life. I've wondered whether the green campaign for net zero carbon emissions would be stronger if there was no concern of anthropocentric climate change - if there was only the undeniable here-and-now health issue of air pollution from fossil fuel to raise as a concern (estimated 200,000 premature deaths per year in US alone). Why do we persist in this unhealthy industry of splitting molecules when we now know well how to make abundant clean energy in splitting atoms?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  9. whites are broken down by sex and educational attainment but blacks and Hispanics are not.

    Doesn’t this violate numerous laws and the eleventh commandment?

    Recycling appeals to me, and when there was a market I took the time to do it.

    Our ideas get recycled and repackaged. This current “Return to Eden” is just the latest iteration.

  10. @Chrisnonymous

    Environment* is the ______ of the young and the privileged:
     
    https://www.wikigallery.org/paintings/322501-323000/322651/painting1.jpg

    Of course, modern environmentalism is embraced by youths who have little knowledge of or real appreciation of nature. However, more broadly, the environment is what we arise from and what makes us feel most alive and so, when we have strong desire or means (the young and privileged), we seek it out. Gardens, whether English or Chinese, attempt to corral and perfect nature, but ultimately they seek to answer for us the questions we ask ourselves about why nature is so compelling.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx0qhR7OsIE

    Rather than complete disparagement, we ask what we have to learn from this fact that the young and privileged prefer environmentalism.

    Replies: @John Achterhof

    Wonderful trailer. Environmentalism certainly has a romantic appeal – the beauty of nature touches the soul. There’s also a practicality to it in that the earth’s biosphere is the ultimate source of all the wealth we humans depend on for quality of life. I’ve wondered whether the green campaign for net zero carbon emissions would be stronger if there was no concern of anthropocentric climate change – if there was only the undeniable here-and-now health issue of air pollution from fossil fuel to raise as a concern (estimated 200,000 premature deaths per year in US alone). Why do we persist in this unhealthy industry of splitting molecules when we now know well how to make abundant clean energy in splitting atoms?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @John Achterhof

    Sure, what could go wrong? If 100% of our power came from nuclear generation, we'd still need portable power transport -- the role that gasoline and diesel currently fill.

    There are only a couple known options for that -- fuel cells and batteries.

    I am not that knowledgeable about fuel cells, but I note that nobody is using them at large scale and I assume there are good reasons for that. Can you make a fuel cell that's as small and powerful as a chainsaw engine?

    Batteries require extensive mining and processing of metals like lead and lithium and generate tremendous amounts of toxic waste.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @John Achterhof

  11. @Dr. Doom
    California has been having rolling blackouts.

    There's "green" energy and reliable power, and nothing in between.

    This "environmental agenda" is about creating a new Dark Ages.

    Controlling people by making them "downsize" and unable to travel.

    The road to serfdom and a new attempt at Feudalism, I'd say.

    Destroying the West to set up a vast Labor Camp Police State.

    Taking away peoples' real rights and giving them stupid "human rights".

    Human rights were written by The Soviet Union and Marxists.

    Globalism is SLAVERY disguised as fake "rights" and phony "freedom".

    Replies: @dfordoom, @The Alarmist

    The road to serfdom is paved with good intentions.

    If you don’t already own the castle or manor house, then you are the serf, a reality lost on most rank-and-file green cultists who sit in their increasingly pricey rented digs in ‘sustainable’ conurbations.

  12. Modern “environmentalism” is part and parcel of the globalist agenda and has little to do with nature. It’s just another excuse to appropriate money and power.

    On the other hand, the Traditional Right and its associated groups—some of more quality than others—have always been pro-environment in the genuine sense. A love of the land goes along with the love of country and hearth and home. No one calling himself a traditionalist can logically be in favor of things like species loss and habitat destruction.

    Books like Lord of the Rings and Dune have long been held to express the traditionalist environmental sentiment in fictional form. This is a big topic, but that’s a pretty good place to start.

    • Agree: iffen, A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Books like Lord of the Rings and Dune have long been held to express the traditionalist environmental sentiment in fictional form.
     
    I have never held that. And, I don't know anyone who does.

    This type of interpretation seems like a combination of misunderstanding plus cherry picking the novels.
    ___

    In the Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings the good guys:
    -- Mine iron
    -- Mine coal
    -- Make steel (from coal & iron)
    -- Forge weapons and armor (from steel)

    If elves are supposed to be the environmentalists, they are a terrible role model. The elves went to the Grey Havens and abandoned Middle Earth forever. The 4th Age was the time of Men (& Dwarves). The environmentalist elves lost, quit, or surrendered.... Take your pick.

    The idea that Lord of the Rings is a modern style environmentalist creed is a bizarre attempt at literary hijacking.
    ___

    The Dune Novels were certainly about planetology:

    The climax of the first book was Paul Atreides threatening ecocide & possibly genocide. If his foes do not obey, "The Spice Will Not Flow!" Everyone addicted to melange will die when their supplies run out. Given that Spice is an expensive upper class addiction, perhaps this is Socialist/Communist credo in action.

    In later volumes the Empire fundamentally changes the ecology of Arrakis to make it better for humans and deadly to the native wild life. In book 4 (possibly 5) the Great Worms became extinct.

    One could posit Dune as a cautionary tale of what should not be done.

    PEACE 😇
  13. Saw a meme the other day — a drawing of St. Greta Thunberg, with the caption “Stop eating meat and pay more taxes to change the weather.” Surely only fascists would disagree, LOL.

    • Agree: Jett Rucker
  14. @John Achterhof
    @Chrisnonymous

    Wonderful trailer. Environmentalism certainly has a romantic appeal - the beauty of nature touches the soul. There's also a practicality to it in that the earth's biosphere is the ultimate source of all the wealth we humans depend on for quality of life. I've wondered whether the green campaign for net zero carbon emissions would be stronger if there was no concern of anthropocentric climate change - if there was only the undeniable here-and-now health issue of air pollution from fossil fuel to raise as a concern (estimated 200,000 premature deaths per year in US alone). Why do we persist in this unhealthy industry of splitting molecules when we now know well how to make abundant clean energy in splitting atoms?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Sure, what could go wrong? If 100% of our power came from nuclear generation, we’d still need portable power transport — the role that gasoline and diesel currently fill.

    There are only a couple known options for that — fuel cells and batteries.

    I am not that knowledgeable about fuel cells, but I note that nobody is using them at large scale and I assume there are good reasons for that. Can you make a fuel cell that’s as small and powerful as a chainsaw engine?

    Batteries require extensive mining and processing of metals like lead and lithium and generate tremendous amounts of toxic waste.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Cloudbuster

    There are large amounts of lithium in things like the geothermal waters at The Geysers in California.  It requires no mining, just capture and purification.

    Cobalt is much more of a concern, and chemistries like lithium-iron-sulfide use none.

    Hybrids save about 1/3 of fuel and require minimal batteries.  Plug-in hybrids typically save between 2/3 and 4/5 of fuel and still use much smaller batteries than pure EVs.  They aren't a "pure" solution but they can get the job done.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Lars Porsena

    , @John Achterhof
    @Cloudbuster

    The concern of toxic waste & cost associated with battery production and disposal is what seems to me to make the nuclear-free (thus absurdly battery intensive) Green New Deal a terrible plan. Clearly the industry has to be regulated, and the less batteries required of a concept of low or zero greenhouse gas national energy the better. Anyway, the world has a discreet, long-accumulated supply of the cheap, portable stuff - now perhaps fueling population overshoot - so the awesome challenge of civilization as we know it going forward without it is going to have to be taken up sooner or later, amid prosperity or in crisis.

  15. Here’s the deal. When the rich are forcing population growth – when they are flooding a nation with third-world refugees – this is the main force increasing the production of greenhouse gases in developed countries, but the rich are making piles of money off of this, so ‘climate change’ doesn’t matter. In fact, it would be racist to even mention this.

    But when the rich want to levy regressive taxes on the working classes, and take away their luxuries, well, all of a sudden ‘climate change’ is the most important thing that there is. Don’t you want to save the planet?

    ‘Climate change’ may well be a real issue, but the way it is being played out is a scam.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @TG

    Note also that population growth and energy intensification in the turd world is not a concern to the globalists.

  16. @Cloudbuster
    @John Achterhof

    Sure, what could go wrong? If 100% of our power came from nuclear generation, we'd still need portable power transport -- the role that gasoline and diesel currently fill.

    There are only a couple known options for that -- fuel cells and batteries.

    I am not that knowledgeable about fuel cells, but I note that nobody is using them at large scale and I assume there are good reasons for that. Can you make a fuel cell that's as small and powerful as a chainsaw engine?

    Batteries require extensive mining and processing of metals like lead and lithium and generate tremendous amounts of toxic waste.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @John Achterhof

    There are large amounts of lithium in things like the geothermal waters at The Geysers in California.  It requires no mining, just capture and purification.

    Cobalt is much more of a concern, and chemistries like lithium-iron-sulfide use none.

    Hybrids save about 1/3 of fuel and require minimal batteries.  Plug-in hybrids typically save between 2/3 and 4/5 of fuel and still use much smaller batteries than pure EVs.  They aren’t a “pure” solution but they can get the job done.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Mr. Rational

    Excuse me, I meant lithium iron phosphate.

    , @Lars Porsena
    @Mr. Rational

    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?

    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from. Or (for the most part) they vastly overestimate how much of it comes from 'renewables' or nuclear. Mainly it's about 70% nat gas and coal.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  17. @TG
    Here's the deal. When the rich are forcing population growth - when they are flooding a nation with third-world refugees - this is the main force increasing the production of greenhouse gases in developed countries, but the rich are making piles of money off of this, so 'climate change' doesn't matter. In fact, it would be racist to even mention this.

    But when the rich want to levy regressive taxes on the working classes, and take away their luxuries, well, all of a sudden 'climate change' is the most important thing that there is. Don't you want to save the planet?

    'Climate change' may well be a real issue, but the way it is being played out is a scam.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Note also that population growth and energy intensification in the turd world is not a concern to the globalists.

    • Disagree: Jett Rucker
  18. @Intelligent Dasein
    Modern "environmentalism" is part and parcel of the globalist agenda and has little to do with nature. It's just another excuse to appropriate money and power.

    On the other hand, the Traditional Right and its associated groups---some of more quality than others---have always been pro-environment in the genuine sense. A love of the land goes along with the love of country and hearth and home. No one calling himself a traditionalist can logically be in favor of things like species loss and habitat destruction.

    Books like Lord of the Rings and Dune have long been held to express the traditionalist environmental sentiment in fictional form. This is a big topic, but that's a pretty good place to start.

    Replies: @A123

    Books like Lord of the Rings and Dune have long been held to express the traditionalist environmental sentiment in fictional form.

    I have never held that. And, I don’t know anyone who does.

    This type of interpretation seems like a combination of misunderstanding plus cherry picking the novels.
    ___

    In the Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings the good guys:
    — Mine iron
    — Mine coal
    — Make steel (from coal & iron)
    — Forge weapons and armor (from steel)

    If elves are supposed to be the environmentalists, they are a terrible role model. The elves went to the Grey Havens and abandoned Middle Earth forever. The 4th Age was the time of Men (& Dwarves). The environmentalist elves lost, quit, or surrendered…. Take your pick.

    The idea that Lord of the Rings is a modern style environmentalist creed is a bizarre attempt at literary hijacking.
    ___

    The Dune Novels were certainly about planetology:

    The climax of the first book was Paul Atreides threatening ecocide & possibly genocide. If his foes do not obey, “The Spice Will Not Flow!” Everyone addicted to melange will die when their supplies run out. Given that Spice is an expensive upper class addiction, perhaps this is Socialist/Communist credo in action.

    In later volumes the Empire fundamentally changes the ecology of Arrakis to make it better for humans and deadly to the native wild life. In book 4 (possibly 5) the Great Worms became extinct.

    One could posit Dune as a cautionary tale of what should not be done.

    PEACE 😇

  19. @Cloudbuster
    @John Achterhof

    Sure, what could go wrong? If 100% of our power came from nuclear generation, we'd still need portable power transport -- the role that gasoline and diesel currently fill.

    There are only a couple known options for that -- fuel cells and batteries.

    I am not that knowledgeable about fuel cells, but I note that nobody is using them at large scale and I assume there are good reasons for that. Can you make a fuel cell that's as small and powerful as a chainsaw engine?

    Batteries require extensive mining and processing of metals like lead and lithium and generate tremendous amounts of toxic waste.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @John Achterhof

    The concern of toxic waste & cost associated with battery production and disposal is what seems to me to make the nuclear-free (thus absurdly battery intensive) Green New Deal a terrible plan. Clearly the industry has to be regulated, and the less batteries required of a concept of low or zero greenhouse gas national energy the better. Anyway, the world has a discreet, long-accumulated supply of the cheap, portable stuff – now perhaps fueling population overshoot – so the awesome challenge of civilization as we know it going forward without it is going to have to be taken up sooner or later, amid prosperity or in crisis.

  20. We basically don’t have any decent alternatives to fossil fuels – unless we can get nuclear fusion going, or some kind of very creative currently undiscovered methods, the planet will slowly slide back into pre-industrial revolution levels as fossil fuels become more scarce.

    • Replies: @A123
    @ThisIsAnon153Replying


    We basically don’t have any decent alternatives to fossil fuels
     
    Thorium recycling (1) is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste. It was spiked in the Cold War era for not producing weapons grade Pu-239.
     
    There are decades years of purified fuel in shipping containers buried in the Nevada desert by the DoE. (2)
     
    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4956/2802/1600/ThN_burial.2.jpg
     
    All it would take to have cheap, abundant electricity is a bit of backbone from our political class.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.thmsr.com/en/lftr/

    (2) https://energyfromthorium.com/2006/07/07/how-to-throw-away-eight-years-worth-of-electricity/

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  21. @Mr. Rational
    @Cloudbuster

    There are large amounts of lithium in things like the geothermal waters at The Geysers in California.  It requires no mining, just capture and purification.

    Cobalt is much more of a concern, and chemistries like lithium-iron-sulfide use none.

    Hybrids save about 1/3 of fuel and require minimal batteries.  Plug-in hybrids typically save between 2/3 and 4/5 of fuel and still use much smaller batteries than pure EVs.  They aren't a "pure" solution but they can get the job done.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Lars Porsena

    Excuse me, I meant lithium iron phosphate.

  22. @JackBNimble
    I'm one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important, but I hate the way this question is phrased. I care greatly about the environment, and hate dumping poison into streams and spewing toxic waste into the atmosphere. But I am much less concerned about climate change, because I think thats much more difficult to control as a single nation, and also much harder to quantify whether or not its happening and why.

    Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident, @Jett Rucker, @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster, @Lars Porsena

    Exactly. Pollution and excessive use of plastic is the major issue, “climate change” is nothing to worry about. Land use and overbuilding could become worrisome as immigration continues to drive suburban sprawl and cheap housing.

  23. @JackBNimble
    I'm one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important, but I hate the way this question is phrased. I care greatly about the environment, and hate dumping poison into streams and spewing toxic waste into the atmosphere. But I am much less concerned about climate change, because I think thats much more difficult to control as a single nation, and also much harder to quantify whether or not its happening and why.

    Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident, @Jett Rucker, @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster, @Lars Porsena

    You really think some supra-national program might in some way favorably affect climate change? Cost-effectively?
    I guess you don’t necessarily think it would be possible to implement any such supra-national program (you didn’t say or imply that you did).

  24. @ThisIsAnon153Replying
    We basically don't have any decent alternatives to fossil fuels - unless we can get nuclear fusion going, or some kind of very creative currently undiscovered methods, the planet will slowly slide back into pre-industrial revolution levels as fossil fuels become more scarce.

    Replies: @A123

    We basically don’t have any decent alternatives to fossil fuels

    Thorium recycling (1) is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste. It was spiked in the Cold War era for not producing weapons grade Pu-239.
     
    There are decades years of purified fuel in shipping containers buried in the Nevada desert by the DoE. (2)
      
    All it would take to have cheap, abundant electricity is a bit of backbone from our political class.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.thmsr.com/en/lftr/

    (2) https://energyfromthorium.com/2006/07/07/how-to-throw-away-eight-years-worth-of-electricity/

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    Thorium recycling (1)
     
    That's not what it's called.

    is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste.
     
    That's not true either.  Fission of U-233 produces a very similar spectrum of radioactive fission products as fission of U-235 or Pu-239.  What it DOES do is produce very little trans-uranic material, because it takes 5 neutron captures to turn Th-232 into Np-237.  Turning U-238 into Pu-239 takes only 1.

    It was spiked in the Cold War era for not producing weapons grade Pu-239.
     
    Mostly it threatened the budget for the Clinch River fast-breeder, which was subsequently cancelled anyway.

    If you want to talk abundance of fuel, look at our supply of depleted uranium.  The USA is sitting on the better part of a million tons of it, and it would only take a thousand tons a year to run our whole freaking country.  We just need to build fast-neutron reactors like the PRISM to use it.  We can use them to "burn" all the transuranics in our existing stocks of "nuclear waste" (slightly-used fuel) in the bargain, because fast neutrons will fission plutonium*, americium and curium pretty reliably while thermal neutrons can't².  A PRISM can be run as a waste-destroying reactor.

    * Pu-239 only has a fission probability of about 65% in a thermal neutron spectrum; the other 35% of the time it becomes Pu-240 and starts up the chain to americium.  Hit it with a fast neutron and the fission probability goes way up.
    2 It's my understanding that U-238 has a fairly high probability of fissioning when hit by a fast neutron.  It's not enough to sustain a chain reaction, but a substantial amount of your FBR fuel can bypass the breeding step and go straight to energy.  Fast-neutron fission is what makes the 3rd stage of a 3-stage hydrogen bomb so devastating; it converts 14.7 MeV fusion neutrons into ~200 MeV of fission energy and works even with depleted uranium.
  25. @A123
    @ThisIsAnon153Replying


    We basically don’t have any decent alternatives to fossil fuels
     
    Thorium recycling (1) is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste. It was spiked in the Cold War era for not producing weapons grade Pu-239.
     
    There are decades years of purified fuel in shipping containers buried in the Nevada desert by the DoE. (2)
     
    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4956/2802/1600/ThN_burial.2.jpg
     
    All it would take to have cheap, abundant electricity is a bit of backbone from our political class.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.thmsr.com/en/lftr/

    (2) https://energyfromthorium.com/2006/07/07/how-to-throw-away-eight-years-worth-of-electricity/

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Thorium recycling (1)

    That’s not what it’s called.

    is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste.

    That’s not true either.  Fission of U-233 produces a very similar spectrum of radioactive fission products as fission of U-235 or Pu-239.  What it DOES do is produce very little trans-uranic material, because it takes 5 neutron captures to turn Th-232 into Np-237.  Turning U-238 into Pu-239 takes only 1.

    It was spiked in the Cold War era for not producing weapons grade Pu-239.

    Mostly it threatened the budget for the Clinch River fast-breeder, which was subsequently cancelled anyway.

    If you want to talk abundance of fuel, look at our supply of depleted uranium.  The USA is sitting on the better part of a million tons of it, and it would only take a thousand tons a year to run our whole freaking country.  We just need to build fast-neutron reactors like the PRISM to use it.  We can use them to “burn” all the transuranics in our existing stocks of “nuclear waste” (slightly-used fuel) in the bargain, because fast neutrons will fission plutonium*, americium and curium pretty reliably while thermal neutrons can’t².  A PRISM can be run as a waste-destroying reactor.

    * Pu-239 only has a fission probability of about 65% in a thermal neutron spectrum; the other 35% of the time it becomes Pu-240 and starts up the chain to americium.  Hit it with a fast neutron and the fission probability goes way up.
    2 It’s my understanding that U-238 has a fairly high probability of fissioning when hit by a fast neutron.  It’s not enough to sustain a chain reaction, but a substantial amount of your FBR fuel can bypass the breeding step and go straight to energy.  Fast-neutron fission is what makes the 3rd stage of a 3-stage hydrogen bomb so devastating; it converts 14.7 MeV fusion neutrons into ~200 MeV of fission energy and works even with depleted uranium.

    • Thanks: iffen
  26. Thorium recycling

    That’s not what it’s called

    From a common sense perspective…. True… However… The environmentalists created really bad definitions, and I am going to use that to my advantage:

    In Orwellian Enviro-Plus-Good-Speak using Thorium is ‘recycling’.
    — Thorium is officially called radioactive ‘waste’.
    — Using ‘waste’ as fuel is ‘recycling’.

    Thorium is 50%+ more ‘renewable’ than Solar. We have:
    — Only ~4,000,000,000    years of Sun
    — Over    6,000,000,000+ years of Thorium

    is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste.

    That’s not true either. Fission of U-233 produces a very similar spectrum of radioactive fission products as fission of U-235 or Pu-239.

    With U235/U238 solids cased in Hastelloy™ the fission products are stuck in the rods and unnecessarily wind up as waste.

    With a LFTR, high value gases such as Krypton separate out and can be captured and sold. There is very little high level waste that cannot be made commercially valuable or further ‘recycled’ to be fissioned down further.

    The USA is sitting on the better part of a million tons of it, and it would only take a thousand tons a year to run our whole freaking country. We just need to build fast-neutron reactors like the PRISM to use it.

    PRISM uses liquid sodium metal, which creates all sorts of risks. Also, the technology is high cost in the business case for electricity generation. There is nothing inherently “wrong” with PRISM technology, but it is a suboptimal solution for commercial applications.

    LFTR is technically easier, has 20,000+ hours of documented & scientifically useful run time at ORNL, and is highly proliferation resisant. Rare Earth mining will continue to produce large quantities of Thorium that can be cheaply claimed as LFTR fuel instead of being deemed costly radioactive waste. LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    In Orwellian Enviro-Plus-Good-Speak using Thorium is ‘recycling’.
    — Thorium is officially called radioactive ‘waste’.
    — Using ‘waste’ as fuel is ‘recycling’.

     
    Tell me about it.  I tried to buy some thorium a while ago.  Nobody sells it because of its crazy designation.  You can't even get thorium-based lamp mantles anymore.

    But what you're really doing with thorium is breeding fertile Th-232 to fissile U-233.  U-233 has a neutron-capture fission probability of about 91% in a thermal neutron spectrum, and emits enough neutrons itself to support a positive breeding ratio.  Nobody's actually done this since the LWBR core tested at Shippingport, though; MSRE did not do breeding.  Thorcon does not intend to do net breeding either.

    With U235/U238 solids cased in Hastelloy™ the fission products are stuck in the rods and unnecessarily wind up as waste.
     
    LWRs use Zircaloy™ cladding, typically with something like 2% Nb; Hastelloy-N™ is what was used in the MSRE.

    It's plenty feasible to recover things from zirc-clad LWR fuel; look up "pyroprocessing".  One major advantage of a liquid-fuel reactor over solid is that you can bubble out neutron poisons like xenon and eliminate restart delays.  Radio-xenon is not a commercially valuable product as it has too short a half-life.

    With a LFTR, high value gases such as Krypton separate out and can be captured and sold.
     
    What's the commercial market for Kr-85?

    There is very little high level waste that cannot be made commercially valuable or further ‘recycled’ to be fissioned down further.
     
    You can't reasonably fission anything lighter than thorium.  There are only a few commercially-viable radioisotopes; things like I-129 and Tc-99 aren't active enough to be useful as sources and nobody wants them for anything else.  Your truly useful things are strong gamma and beta emitters like Co-60, Cs-137 and Sr-90.  You don't really get Co-60 from fission.  The Am-241 used in smoke detectors would otherwise be a waste product, though it fissions well in an FBR.

    PRISM uses liquid sodium metal, which creates all sorts of risks.
     
    Funny, liquid sodium is used all over the place in other industrial and chemical applications.  What makes it risky for nuclear?  Remember, EBR-II ran for 30 years with just one minor issue with its steam generator, easily patched.  Sodium is VERY easy on things; when it was decommissioned, chalk marks on the interior of the EBR-II reactor vessel made by the builders were still like new.

    Also, the technology is high cost in the business case for electricity generation.
     
    You need to ask:  what makes it so?  And what could we do about it?  Those same factors probably affect LFTR too.

    LFTR is technically easier, has 20,000+ hours of documented & scientifically useful run time at ORNL, and is highly proliferation resisant.
     
    We accumulate the better part of a MILLION hours of LWR run time each year in the USA alone, and the EBR-II alone ran for OTOO a quarter-million hours.

    Now, I don't dislike the idea of molten-salt reactors.  You can do things at MSRE's 850°C that you can't do at PRISM's 550°C, and I mean things like industrial process heat.  But they are nowhere near the readiness-for-production that PRISM is, and it'll take a couple of decades to get them there.  We don't HAVE two decades to move on the problems that nuclear energy can solve.

    Rare Earth mining will continue to produce large quantities of Thorium that can be cheaply claimed as LFTR fuel instead of being deemed costly radioactive waste.
     
    That is a good point, but in an energy market which can only consume a few thousand tons per year, is there any way to prevent it from selling at waste-material prices?

    LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.
     
    Tell me that AFTER somebody's got them in series production.

    Replies: @A123

  27. @JackBNimble
    I'm one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important, but I hate the way this question is phrased. I care greatly about the environment, and hate dumping poison into streams and spewing toxic waste into the atmosphere. But I am much less concerned about climate change, because I think thats much more difficult to control as a single nation, and also much harder to quantify whether or not its happening and why.

    Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident, @Jett Rucker, @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster, @Lars Porsena

    Anyone of any political persuasion who REALLY cares about the environment would be against huge population increases, such as we have with the immigration invasion. What say you, Democrats?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There are plenty on the left who favor zero population growth or population reduction. Some people believe the pandemic response is the beginning of a move to identify and "make redundant" large swaths of the population.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Oliver D. Smith

  28. @Achmed E. Newman
    @JackBNimble

    Anyone of any political persuasion who REALLY cares about the environment would be against huge population increases, such as we have with the immigration invasion. What say you, Democrats?

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    There are plenty on the left who favor zero population growth or population reduction. Some people believe the pandemic response is the beginning of a move to identify and “make redundant” large swaths of the population.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Cloudbuster

    They say they do, but if they are for mass immigration they are full of it. The net increase in the population of the US over the last 50 years can be attributed to immigration (and the progeny thereof) alone.

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @Cloudbuster

    Recognising overpopulation is a minority viewpoint among ideologues - it's denied by capitalists, religious conservatives, white nationalists, Marxists, socialists and SJWs.

    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don't want to decrease the fertility rates of white people - they're no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US - he's telling white American families to have more kids...

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  29. @JackBNimble
    I'm one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important, but I hate the way this question is phrased. I care greatly about the environment, and hate dumping poison into streams and spewing toxic waste into the atmosphere. But I am much less concerned about climate change, because I think thats much more difficult to control as a single nation, and also much harder to quantify whether or not its happening and why.

    Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident, @Jett Rucker, @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster, @Lars Porsena

    I’m one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important

    I don’t think that you are really that rare. Many — most — conservatives care about the environment, but “environmentalism” is entirely a trojan horse of the left and nobody wants to step into that trap.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  30. @Cloudbuster
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There are plenty on the left who favor zero population growth or population reduction. Some people believe the pandemic response is the beginning of a move to identify and "make redundant" large swaths of the population.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Oliver D. Smith

    They say they do, but if they are for mass immigration they are full of it. The net increase in the population of the US over the last 50 years can be attributed to immigration (and the progeny thereof) alone.

  31. @A123


    Thorium recycling
     
    That’s not what it’s called
     
    From a common sense perspective.... True... However... The environmentalists created really bad definitions, and I am going to use that to my advantage:

    In Orwellian Enviro-Plus-Good-Speak using Thorium is 'recycling'.
    -- Thorium is officially called radioactive 'waste'.
    -- Using 'waste' as fuel is 'recycling'.

    Thorium is 50%+ more 'renewable' than Solar. We have:
    -- Only ~4,000,000,000    years of Sun
    -- Over    6,000,000,000+ years of Thorium



    is a proven fission based nuclear process that has almost zero radioactive waste.
     
    That’s not true either. Fission of U-233 produces a very similar spectrum of radioactive fission products as fission of U-235 or Pu-239.
     
    With U235/U238 solids cased in Hastelloy™ the fission products are stuck in the rods and unnecessarily wind up as waste.

    With a LFTR, high value gases such as Krypton separate out and can be captured and sold. There is very little high level waste that cannot be made commercially valuable or further 'recycled' to be fissioned down further.


    The USA is sitting on the better part of a million tons of it, and it would only take a thousand tons a year to run our whole freaking country. We just need to build fast-neutron reactors like the PRISM to use it.
     
    PRISM uses liquid sodium metal, which creates all sorts of risks. Also, the technology is high cost in the business case for electricity generation. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with PRISM technology, but it is a suboptimal solution for commercial applications.

    LFTR is technically easier, has 20,000+ hours of documented & scientifically useful run time at ORNL, and is highly proliferation resisant. Rare Earth mining will continue to produce large quantities of Thorium that can be cheaply claimed as LFTR fuel instead of being deemed costly radioactive waste. LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    In Orwellian Enviro-Plus-Good-Speak using Thorium is ‘recycling’.
    — Thorium is officially called radioactive ‘waste’.
    — Using ‘waste’ as fuel is ‘recycling’.

    Tell me about it.  I tried to buy some thorium a while ago.  Nobody sells it because of its crazy designation.  You can’t even get thorium-based lamp mantles anymore.

    But what you’re really doing with thorium is breeding fertile Th-232 to fissile U-233.  U-233 has a neutron-capture fission probability of about 91% in a thermal neutron spectrum, and emits enough neutrons itself to support a positive breeding ratio.  Nobody’s actually done this since the LWBR core tested at Shippingport, though; MSRE did not do breeding.  Thorcon does not intend to do net breeding either.

    With U235/U238 solids cased in Hastelloy™ the fission products are stuck in the rods and unnecessarily wind up as waste.

    LWRs use Zircaloy™ cladding, typically with something like 2% Nb; Hastelloy-N™ is what was used in the MSRE.

    It’s plenty feasible to recover things from zirc-clad LWR fuel; look up “pyroprocessing”.  One major advantage of a liquid-fuel reactor over solid is that you can bubble out neutron poisons like xenon and eliminate restart delays.  Radio-xenon is not a commercially valuable product as it has too short a half-life.

    With a LFTR, high value gases such as Krypton separate out and can be captured and sold.

    What’s the commercial market for Kr-85?

    There is very little high level waste that cannot be made commercially valuable or further ‘recycled’ to be fissioned down further.

    You can’t reasonably fission anything lighter than thorium.  There are only a few commercially-viable radioisotopes; things like I-129 and Tc-99 aren’t active enough to be useful as sources and nobody wants them for anything else.  Your truly useful things are strong gamma and beta emitters like Co-60, Cs-137 and Sr-90.  You don’t really get Co-60 from fission.  The Am-241 used in smoke detectors would otherwise be a waste product, though it fissions well in an FBR.

    PRISM uses liquid sodium metal, which creates all sorts of risks.

    Funny, liquid sodium is used all over the place in other industrial and chemical applications.  What makes it risky for nuclear?  Remember, EBR-II ran for 30 years with just one minor issue with its steam generator, easily patched.  Sodium is VERY easy on things; when it was decommissioned, chalk marks on the interior of the EBR-II reactor vessel made by the builders were still like new.

    Also, the technology is high cost in the business case for electricity generation.

    You need to ask:  what makes it so?  And what could we do about it?  Those same factors probably affect LFTR too.

    LFTR is technically easier, has 20,000+ hours of documented & scientifically useful run time at ORNL, and is highly proliferation resisant.

    We accumulate the better part of a MILLION hours of LWR run time each year in the USA alone, and the EBR-II alone ran for OTOO a quarter-million hours.

    Now, I don’t dislike the idea of molten-salt reactors.  You can do things at MSRE’s 850°C that you can’t do at PRISM’s 550°C, and I mean things like industrial process heat.  But they are nowhere near the readiness-for-production that PRISM is, and it’ll take a couple of decades to get them there.  We don’t HAVE two decades to move on the problems that nuclear energy can solve.

    Rare Earth mining will continue to produce large quantities of Thorium that can be cheaply claimed as LFTR fuel instead of being deemed costly radioactive waste.

    That is a good point, but in an energy market which can only consume a few thousand tons per year, is there any way to prevent it from selling at waste-material prices?

    LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.

    Tell me that AFTER somebody’s got them in series production.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. Rational

    LFTR vs PRISM is a discussion that has been going on among power generation community for some time. I doubt we will settle it here, but I will try to answer a few of your questions.


    LWRs use Zircaloy™ cladding, typically with something like 2% Nb; Hastelloy-N™ is what was used in the MSRE.
     
    Yes. I knew that it was zirconium. I got the brand name wrong. Darn it.

    It’s plenty feasible to recover things from zirc-clad LWR fuel; look up “pyroprocessing”.
     
    I concur that pyroprocessing is technically feasible.

    Though better than the alternatives, it is still quite expensive. As an unsubsidized commercial process it is economically marginal to infeasible.


    One major advantage of a liquid-fuel reactor over solid is that you can bubble out neutron poisons like xenon and eliminate restart delays.
     
    This is a benefit to both PRISM and LFTR.

    Funny, liquid sodium is used all over the place in other industrial and chemical applications. What makes it risky for nuclear?
     
    Define "all over the place"?

    Liquid sodium has gone down in popularity. Both liquid sodium and liquid lead were much more popular a couple industrial generations ago.

    Headaches are associated with the shutdown, maintenance, start up cycle. Keeping equipment that has been in sodium service away from water seems obvious, but mistakes are distressingly frequent during maintenance cycles. I will concede that nuclear plant maintenance is better organized than other types of industrial facilities.

    There are also "heavy impact" tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time? Government regulators can demand answers for low probability scenarios. Feel free to use an extensive list of negative terms for those regulators.... You can't throw them out when they control mandatory licenses.

    LFTR uses "flibe" salt which rapidly cools and solidifies. It is effectively non reactive in the environment. As long as you do not eat it....


    That is a good point, but in an energy market which can only consume a few thousand tons per year, is there any way to prevent it from selling at waste-material prices?
     
    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.

    Thorium fuel price is "less than zero". Miners will pay electricity firms to take it so that it is not penalized as waste product. It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has "better than free" pricing.



    LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.
     
    Tell me that AFTER somebody’s got them in series production.
     
    Countries like India and China are putting significant resources into Thorium nuclear power. I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.

    Again. PRISM is not a "bad" solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a "better" commercial solution for civilian electricity.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  32. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kent Nationalist
    Educating women was a mistake

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Kind of a strange comment for this particular poll. Unless it’s just a ceterum censeo thing you like to throw in regardless of a post’s actual content. There are plenty of polls with striking sex differences. This one ain’t really one of them. Educated white men aren’t exactly covering themselves in glory.

  33. @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    In Orwellian Enviro-Plus-Good-Speak using Thorium is ‘recycling’.
    — Thorium is officially called radioactive ‘waste’.
    — Using ‘waste’ as fuel is ‘recycling’.

     
    Tell me about it.  I tried to buy some thorium a while ago.  Nobody sells it because of its crazy designation.  You can't even get thorium-based lamp mantles anymore.

    But what you're really doing with thorium is breeding fertile Th-232 to fissile U-233.  U-233 has a neutron-capture fission probability of about 91% in a thermal neutron spectrum, and emits enough neutrons itself to support a positive breeding ratio.  Nobody's actually done this since the LWBR core tested at Shippingport, though; MSRE did not do breeding.  Thorcon does not intend to do net breeding either.

    With U235/U238 solids cased in Hastelloy™ the fission products are stuck in the rods and unnecessarily wind up as waste.
     
    LWRs use Zircaloy™ cladding, typically with something like 2% Nb; Hastelloy-N™ is what was used in the MSRE.

    It's plenty feasible to recover things from zirc-clad LWR fuel; look up "pyroprocessing".  One major advantage of a liquid-fuel reactor over solid is that you can bubble out neutron poisons like xenon and eliminate restart delays.  Radio-xenon is not a commercially valuable product as it has too short a half-life.

    With a LFTR, high value gases such as Krypton separate out and can be captured and sold.
     
    What's the commercial market for Kr-85?

    There is very little high level waste that cannot be made commercially valuable or further ‘recycled’ to be fissioned down further.
     
    You can't reasonably fission anything lighter than thorium.  There are only a few commercially-viable radioisotopes; things like I-129 and Tc-99 aren't active enough to be useful as sources and nobody wants them for anything else.  Your truly useful things are strong gamma and beta emitters like Co-60, Cs-137 and Sr-90.  You don't really get Co-60 from fission.  The Am-241 used in smoke detectors would otherwise be a waste product, though it fissions well in an FBR.

    PRISM uses liquid sodium metal, which creates all sorts of risks.
     
    Funny, liquid sodium is used all over the place in other industrial and chemical applications.  What makes it risky for nuclear?  Remember, EBR-II ran for 30 years with just one minor issue with its steam generator, easily patched.  Sodium is VERY easy on things; when it was decommissioned, chalk marks on the interior of the EBR-II reactor vessel made by the builders were still like new.

    Also, the technology is high cost in the business case for electricity generation.
     
    You need to ask:  what makes it so?  And what could we do about it?  Those same factors probably affect LFTR too.

    LFTR is technically easier, has 20,000+ hours of documented & scientifically useful run time at ORNL, and is highly proliferation resisant.
     
    We accumulate the better part of a MILLION hours of LWR run time each year in the USA alone, and the EBR-II alone ran for OTOO a quarter-million hours.

    Now, I don't dislike the idea of molten-salt reactors.  You can do things at MSRE's 850°C that you can't do at PRISM's 550°C, and I mean things like industrial process heat.  But they are nowhere near the readiness-for-production that PRISM is, and it'll take a couple of decades to get them there.  We don't HAVE two decades to move on the problems that nuclear energy can solve.

    Rare Earth mining will continue to produce large quantities of Thorium that can be cheaply claimed as LFTR fuel instead of being deemed costly radioactive waste.
     
    That is a good point, but in an energy market which can only consume a few thousand tons per year, is there any way to prevent it from selling at waste-material prices?

    LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.
     
    Tell me that AFTER somebody's got them in series production.

    Replies: @A123

    LFTR vs PRISM is a discussion that has been going on among power generation community for some time. I doubt we will settle it here, but I will try to answer a few of your questions.

    LWRs use Zircaloy™ cladding, typically with something like 2% Nb; Hastelloy-N™ is what was used in the MSRE.

    Yes. I knew that it was zirconium. I got the brand name wrong. Darn it.

    It’s plenty feasible to recover things from zirc-clad LWR fuel; look up “pyroprocessing”.

    I concur that pyroprocessing is technically feasible.

    Though better than the alternatives, it is still quite expensive. As an unsubsidized commercial process it is economically marginal to infeasible.

    One major advantage of a liquid-fuel reactor over solid is that you can bubble out neutron poisons like xenon and eliminate restart delays.

    This is a benefit to both PRISM and LFTR.

    Funny, liquid sodium is used all over the place in other industrial and chemical applications. What makes it risky for nuclear?

    Define “all over the place”?

    Liquid sodium has gone down in popularity. Both liquid sodium and liquid lead were much more popular a couple industrial generations ago.

    Headaches are associated with the shutdown, maintenance, start up cycle. Keeping equipment that has been in sodium service away from water seems obvious, but mistakes are distressingly frequent during maintenance cycles. I will concede that nuclear plant maintenance is better organized than other types of industrial facilities.

    There are also “heavy impact” tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time? Government regulators can demand answers for low probability scenarios. Feel free to use an extensive list of negative terms for those regulators…. You can’t throw them out when they control mandatory licenses.

    LFTR uses “flibe” salt which rapidly cools and solidifies. It is effectively non reactive in the environment. As long as you do not eat it….

    That is a good point, but in an energy market which can only consume a few thousand tons per year, is there any way to prevent it from selling at waste-material prices?

    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.

    Thorium fuel price is “less than zero”. Miners will pay electricity firms to take it so that it is not penalized as waste product. It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has “better than free” pricing.

    LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.

    Tell me that AFTER somebody’s got them in series production.

    Countries like India and China are putting significant resources into Thorium nuclear power. I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.

    Again. PRISM is not a “bad” solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a “better” commercial solution for civilian electricity.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    There are also “heavy impact” tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time?
     
    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it's a pool-type reactor, so no problem.  Passive safety is a great thing.

    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.
     
    As long as supply keeps exceeding demand, it will continue to do so.  This will be an ongoing problem for REE refiners.

    It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has “better than free” pricing.
     
    So long as you CAN use it as fuel.  I don't know if the NRC has even certified Th as a fuel component, though I know lots of people have been talking about it for years.

    I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.
     
    The PRISM-based VTR (Versatile Test Reactor) is due to be built before any MSR in the USA.

    Again. PRISM is not a “bad” solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a “better” commercial solution for civilian electricity.
     
    <shrug>  The "value proposition" of getting rid of the USA's inventory of "high-level nuclear waste", plus turning the inventory of uranium tailings from a liability into an asset, seems like a good tradeoff to me.  Given the association of thorium with REEs, it looks like we have more fertile material than we know what to do with.

    Replies: @A123, @V. K. Ovelund

  34. @A123
    @Mr. Rational

    LFTR vs PRISM is a discussion that has been going on among power generation community for some time. I doubt we will settle it here, but I will try to answer a few of your questions.


    LWRs use Zircaloy™ cladding, typically with something like 2% Nb; Hastelloy-N™ is what was used in the MSRE.
     
    Yes. I knew that it was zirconium. I got the brand name wrong. Darn it.

    It’s plenty feasible to recover things from zirc-clad LWR fuel; look up “pyroprocessing”.
     
    I concur that pyroprocessing is technically feasible.

    Though better than the alternatives, it is still quite expensive. As an unsubsidized commercial process it is economically marginal to infeasible.


    One major advantage of a liquid-fuel reactor over solid is that you can bubble out neutron poisons like xenon and eliminate restart delays.
     
    This is a benefit to both PRISM and LFTR.

    Funny, liquid sodium is used all over the place in other industrial and chemical applications. What makes it risky for nuclear?
     
    Define "all over the place"?

    Liquid sodium has gone down in popularity. Both liquid sodium and liquid lead were much more popular a couple industrial generations ago.

    Headaches are associated with the shutdown, maintenance, start up cycle. Keeping equipment that has been in sodium service away from water seems obvious, but mistakes are distressingly frequent during maintenance cycles. I will concede that nuclear plant maintenance is better organized than other types of industrial facilities.

    There are also "heavy impact" tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time? Government regulators can demand answers for low probability scenarios. Feel free to use an extensive list of negative terms for those regulators.... You can't throw them out when they control mandatory licenses.

    LFTR uses "flibe" salt which rapidly cools and solidifies. It is effectively non reactive in the environment. As long as you do not eat it....


    That is a good point, but in an energy market which can only consume a few thousand tons per year, is there any way to prevent it from selling at waste-material prices?
     
    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.

    Thorium fuel price is "less than zero". Miners will pay electricity firms to take it so that it is not penalized as waste product. It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has "better than free" pricing.



    LFTR is cheaper and faster to market for commercial electricity generation.
     
    Tell me that AFTER somebody’s got them in series production.
     
    Countries like India and China are putting significant resources into Thorium nuclear power. I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.

    Again. PRISM is not a "bad" solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a "better" commercial solution for civilian electricity.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    There are also “heavy impact” tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time?

    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it’s a pool-type reactor, so no problem.  Passive safety is a great thing.

    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.

    As long as supply keeps exceeding demand, it will continue to do so.  This will be an ongoing problem for REE refiners.

    It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has “better than free” pricing.

    So long as you CAN use it as fuel.  I don’t know if the NRC has even certified Th as a fuel component, though I know lots of people have been talking about it for years.

    I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.

    The PRISM-based VTR (Versatile Test Reactor) is due to be built before any MSR in the USA.

    Again. PRISM is not a “bad” solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a “better” commercial solution for civilian electricity.

    <shrug>  The “value proposition” of getting rid of the USA’s inventory of “high-level nuclear waste”, plus turning the inventory of uranium tailings from a liability into an asset, seems like a good tradeoff to me.  Given the association of thorium with REEs, it looks like we have more fertile material than we know what to do with.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. Rational


    The “value proposition” of getting rid of the USA’s inventory of “high-level nuclear waste”, plus turning the inventory of uranium tailings from a liability into an asset, seems like a good tradeoff to me.
     
    I thing this is where we reach the agree to disagree point.

    -- I am basing my conclusion on unsubsidized commercial electricity.
    -- You are basing your conclusion on non-commercial activity associated with reducing existing high-level nuclear waste.

    Neither one of us is "wrong". We are reaching different answers because, we are asking different questions.

    PEACE 😇
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it’s a pool-type reactor, so no problem. Passive safety is a great thing.
     
    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?

    (I do not mind if you answer, “Politics!” but this same answer has been given by various random persons regarding nuclear for the past 40 years. That answer is brief but not very illuminating. I ask because you seem to have some relevant knowledge, so a technical and/or commercial answer would be appreciated at your discretion.)

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. Rational

  35. @JackBNimble
    I'm one of those rare conservatives who would list the environment as super important, but I hate the way this question is phrased. I care greatly about the environment, and hate dumping poison into streams and spewing toxic waste into the atmosphere. But I am much less concerned about climate change, because I think thats much more difficult to control as a single nation, and also much harder to quantify whether or not its happening and why.

    Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident, @Jett Rucker, @Achmed E. Newman, @Cloudbuster, @Lars Porsena

    That’s not environmentalism it’s conservationism.

    At least, it’s different enough to warrant a separate word. These modern environmentalists are on about something entirely different. The whole green/environmental movement is something completely different.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  36. @Mr. Rational
    @Cloudbuster

    There are large amounts of lithium in things like the geothermal waters at The Geysers in California.  It requires no mining, just capture and purification.

    Cobalt is much more of a concern, and chemistries like lithium-iron-sulfide use none.

    Hybrids save about 1/3 of fuel and require minimal batteries.  Plug-in hybrids typically save between 2/3 and 4/5 of fuel and still use much smaller batteries than pure EVs.  They aren't a "pure" solution but they can get the job done.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Lars Porsena

    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?

    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from. Or (for the most part) they vastly overestimate how much of it comes from ‘renewables’ or nuclear. Mainly it’s about 70% nat gas and coal.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Lars Porsena


    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?
     
    The electricity has to be accounted for separately, because it could come from just about anything.  Depending where you are, the season and even time of day, it could come from your own solar panels, a wind farm, hydro dams (most likely if you're in the BPA territory), coal, nuclear, natural gas, or even petroleum if you're in Hawaii or Puerto Rico.  Note that almost none of those other fuels come primarily from foreign sources, so there is a great deal more energy security associated with them.

    Regardless, the thermal efficiency of the electric plant is almost certainly higher than what an ICEV achieves.  Gas-fired CCGTs are now up to 62% efficiency, and the carbon emissions from gas are quite a bit lower than petroleum.


    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from.
     
    I have a very deep understanding of that, and "it's complicated" barely scratches the surface.

    Replies: @A123, @Lars Porsena

  37. @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    There are also “heavy impact” tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time?
     
    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it's a pool-type reactor, so no problem.  Passive safety is a great thing.

    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.
     
    As long as supply keeps exceeding demand, it will continue to do so.  This will be an ongoing problem for REE refiners.

    It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has “better than free” pricing.
     
    So long as you CAN use it as fuel.  I don't know if the NRC has even certified Th as a fuel component, though I know lots of people have been talking about it for years.

    I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.
     
    The PRISM-based VTR (Versatile Test Reactor) is due to be built before any MSR in the USA.

    Again. PRISM is not a “bad” solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a “better” commercial solution for civilian electricity.
     
    <shrug>  The "value proposition" of getting rid of the USA's inventory of "high-level nuclear waste", plus turning the inventory of uranium tailings from a liability into an asset, seems like a good tradeoff to me.  Given the association of thorium with REEs, it looks like we have more fertile material than we know what to do with.

    Replies: @A123, @V. K. Ovelund

    The “value proposition” of getting rid of the USA’s inventory of “high-level nuclear waste”, plus turning the inventory of uranium tailings from a liability into an asset, seems like a good tradeoff to me.

    I thing this is where we reach the agree to disagree point.

    — I am basing my conclusion on unsubsidized commercial electricity.
    — You are basing your conclusion on non-commercial activity associated with reducing existing high-level nuclear waste.

    Neither one of us is “wrong”. We are reaching different answers because, we are asking different questions.

    PEACE 😇

  38. I wonder how much money is spent on the environment compared to that which is spent on diversity. Probably two very difficult calculations to make, but just imagine if we spent the diversity money on the environment.

    There would probably be corridors connecting parks. Pretty good budget for de-extincting animals and rewildering them. Perhaps, even creating habitat in space.

    But woe to anyone on Earth who tries to fly an environmental flag above a rainbow flag! These large ambitions don’t have room to exist. Instead, they ban plastic straws and bags, and try to get us to eat bugs.

  39. @Lars Porsena
    @Mr. Rational

    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?

    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from. Or (for the most part) they vastly overestimate how much of it comes from 'renewables' or nuclear. Mainly it's about 70% nat gas and coal.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?

    The electricity has to be accounted for separately, because it could come from just about anything.  Depending where you are, the season and even time of day, it could come from your own solar panels, a wind farm, hydro dams (most likely if you’re in the BPA territory), coal, nuclear, natural gas, or even petroleum if you’re in Hawaii or Puerto Rico.  Note that almost none of those other fuels come primarily from foreign sources, so there is a great deal more energy security associated with them.

    Regardless, the thermal efficiency of the electric plant is almost certainly higher than what an ICEV achieves.  Gas-fired CCGTs are now up to 62% efficiency, and the carbon emissions from gas are quite a bit lower than petroleum.

    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from.

    I have a very deep understanding of that, and “it’s complicated” barely scratches the surface.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. Rational

    I concur with “it’s complicated”.

    For electric vehicles one also has to take proper credit for Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems [KERS] (a.k.a. regenerative braking). A well executed electric vehicle concept will recapture some % of the energy associated with deceleration.

    Also important to consider -- An IC engine will typically last the life of the car. A high performance battery pack will have to be replaced every 5 years or so. This has cost and environmental impact for the total lifecycle.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @Lars Porsena
    @Mr. Rational

    I'm a bit late with this reply but I will reply anyway.

    Yes, the 2 stage turbines are more efficient than ICE's now. That's good. I find it curious though, that no one has tried to put a second stage heat-scavenging steam turbine on an ICE. ICE's are more efficient than single stage turbines, only the dual stage turbines are more efficient than ICE's. But since the 2nd stage is heat scavenging, why not put a 2nd stage turbine on an ICE? Maybe they are running too cool to be efficient or maybe turbines is what turbine guys know and are comfortable with. Seems possible though.

    At any rate, as far as I can tell, you're idea that the efficiency of the electric plant is certainly better than what the ICE in a car achieves is common but most likely completely wrong. Assuming they are built in the same year, the ICEs in a power plant are about the same efficiency as the ICE in a car coming out that year. If your car is newer than your power plant, the car engine is probably more efficient. Also, if your power plant is a single stage gas turbine rather than dual, the car is probably still more efficient.

    But there is one important thing you are leaving out with EVs running on electric power - batteries. Even high tech lithium batteries are only about 40% efficient in charging.

    So whatever the difference is between the efficiency of the power plant and the efficiency of your car engine, that is multiplicative with the efficiency on your batteries. And that is a lot of inefficiency. Even if you are powered on a new turbine plant with a dual stage turbine you have to multiply .62 x .4 to compare to you're old car which is maybe .4 itself. But .62 x .4 = .26 efficient compared to the ICE car's .4. Batteries suck. This is a big part of why I don't get how people expect efficiency gains using them.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  40. @Mr. Rational
    @Lars Porsena


    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?
     
    The electricity has to be accounted for separately, because it could come from just about anything.  Depending where you are, the season and even time of day, it could come from your own solar panels, a wind farm, hydro dams (most likely if you're in the BPA territory), coal, nuclear, natural gas, or even petroleum if you're in Hawaii or Puerto Rico.  Note that almost none of those other fuels come primarily from foreign sources, so there is a great deal more energy security associated with them.

    Regardless, the thermal efficiency of the electric plant is almost certainly higher than what an ICEV achieves.  Gas-fired CCGTs are now up to 62% efficiency, and the carbon emissions from gas are quite a bit lower than petroleum.


    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from.
     
    I have a very deep understanding of that, and "it's complicated" barely scratches the surface.

    Replies: @A123, @Lars Porsena

    I concur with “it’s complicated”.

    For electric vehicles one also has to take proper credit for Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems [KERS] (a.k.a. regenerative braking). A well executed electric vehicle concept will recapture some % of the energy associated with deceleration.

    Also important to consider — An IC engine will typically last the life of the car. A high performance battery pack will have to be replaced every 5 years or so. This has cost and environmental impact for the total lifecycle.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    For electric vehicles one also has to take proper credit for Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems [KERS] (a.k.a. regenerative braking).
     
    Also for hybrids, but there's another factor for hybrids:  they typically use Atkinson-cycle engines which are more efficient than your regular ICE.  Guess how I know just what kind of advantage it provides?

    A high performance battery pack will have to be replaced every 5 years or so. This has cost and environmental impact for the total lifecycle.
     
    7.5 years so far and still going strong on mine.
  41. @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    There are also “heavy impact” tail risk cases. What happens if the facility loses control of steam and liquid sodium at the same time?
     
    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it's a pool-type reactor, so no problem.  Passive safety is a great thing.

    Electricity producers want thorium to keep selling at waste-material prices.
     
    As long as supply keeps exceeding demand, it will continue to do so.  This will be an ongoing problem for REE refiners.

    It is hard for any competitor to go head-to-head with a fuel that has “better than free” pricing.
     
    So long as you CAN use it as fuel.  I don't know if the NRC has even certified Th as a fuel component, though I know lots of people have been talking about it for years.

    I would be willing to bet that Thorium (most likely LFTR) will reach series production BEFORE fast neutron solutions including PRISM.
     
    The PRISM-based VTR (Versatile Test Reactor) is due to be built before any MSR in the USA.

    Again. PRISM is not a “bad” solution. The value proposition makes LFTR a “better” commercial solution for civilian electricity.
     
    <shrug>  The "value proposition" of getting rid of the USA's inventory of "high-level nuclear waste", plus turning the inventory of uranium tailings from a liability into an asset, seems like a good tradeoff to me.  Given the association of thorium with REEs, it looks like we have more fertile material than we know what to do with.

    Replies: @A123, @V. K. Ovelund

    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it’s a pool-type reactor, so no problem. Passive safety is a great thing.

    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?

    (I do not mind if you answer, “Politics!” but this same answer has been given by various random persons regarding nuclear for the past 40 years. That answer is brief but not very illuminating. I ask because you seem to have some relevant knowledge, so a technical and/or commercial answer would be appreciated at your discretion.)

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?
     
    For the current generation of Light Water Reactors [LWR] versus Thorium LFTR, the answer is the Cold War and the Military Industrial Complex. Running U-235 LWR with fuel rods that are mostly U-238 yields neutron capture created Pu-239. The MIC plan was to recover that Plutonium for nukes.

    Even though changing to non-proliferation technologies has been the obvious choice for 20+ years the NRC is a hideously moribund bureacracy, and most of their rules assume LWR technology. Gen IV solutions like LFTR are bottled up due to regulatory uncertainty.
    ____

    I'll let MR speak to PRISM specifically, but I suspect similar obstacles.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @Mr. Rational
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?
     
    At least three reasons.

    1.  For a long time, the NRC didn't even have regulations governing the certification of a reactor that was not cooled by light water.  That ruled out heavy-water and molten salt reactors as well.

    2.  There are major financial and managerial risks involved with the first-of-a-kind anything.  Look at the 4 AP1000 projects started in the previous decade; two have been abandoned and the other two are way over budget and behind schedule (though approaching completion).

    3.  There's no established infrastructure to support the fuel cycle, and that has big economies of scale.

    The Trump administration is doing something about #2.  The NuScale project at UAMPS is receiving something like $1.4 billion to help prove the concept.  But basically, if you're going to build one of something, it's going to be hand-built and cost a fortune; if you're going to build 500 or 5000, you can do it vastly cheaper AND better because you can automate and stop making beginner's mistakes.

    Replies: @A123

  42. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it’s a pool-type reactor, so no problem. Passive safety is a great thing.
     
    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?

    (I do not mind if you answer, “Politics!” but this same answer has been given by various random persons regarding nuclear for the past 40 years. That answer is brief but not very illuminating. I ask because you seem to have some relevant knowledge, so a technical and/or commercial answer would be appreciated at your discretion.)

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. Rational

    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?

    For the current generation of Light Water Reactors [LWR] versus Thorium LFTR, the answer is the Cold War and the Military Industrial Complex. Running U-235 LWR with fuel rods that are mostly U-238 yields neutron capture created Pu-239. The MIC plan was to recover that Plutonium for nukes.

    Even though changing to non-proliferation technologies has been the obvious choice for 20+ years the NRC is a hideously moribund bureacracy, and most of their rules assume LWR technology. Gen IV solutions like LFTR are bottled up due to regulatory uncertainty.
    ____

    I’ll let MR speak to PRISM specifically, but I suspect similar obstacles.

    PEACE 😇

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    Running U-235 LWR with fuel rods that are mostly U-238 yields neutron capture created Pu-239. The MIC plan was to recover that Plutonium for nukes.
     
    That's the caricature that the anti-nuclear activists have been painting since the 1960's.  The truth is quite a bit different.

    Weapons-grade plutonium is at least 93% Pu-239.  Pu-238 is a massive heat generator, and Pu-240 is non-fissile but has a high rate of spontaneous fissions.  This is not a problem in a reactor.  In a bomb the heat degrades your implosion explosives, and spontaneous fissions can trigger the chain reaction before the implosion is complete and slash the yield to almost nothing (a "fizzle").  Ergo, you want as little of that going on as you can practically get.  Problem is you can't separate the different isotopes by chemical means, so whatever you make, you're pretty much stuck with.

    In a LWR, you've got a thermal neutron spectrum which can generate Pu-239, but as soon as it's formed it is a target for more neutrons.  It'll fission about 65% of the time when hit, but the other 35% of the time you get reactions like (n,2n) forming Pu-238, or (n,γ) forming Pu-240.  And since neither isotope is fissile, they build up over time.

    Time is a big issue, because refueling your typical commercial LWR requires shutting it down, letting the really hot stuff decay, then swapping fuel rods before closing it up again.  This is a process which usually takes a month.  Because that's so time-consuming, such reactors usually run on 18-month cycles and refuel in spring one year, fall the following year, spring 2 years later, etc.  This means there is a LOT of time for the plutonium formed in the reactor to be further mutated.  What comes out is utterly useless for nuclear weapons.

    Making weapons-grade material requires a whole different approach.  You use reactors which can refuel while in operation, and you push the fuel through in a matter of months or weeks so that the Pu-239 you make doesn't have long to capture neutrons and become something else.  Then you let the fuel cool for a while and reprocess it.  The Windscale reactor and the Hanford N reactor were designed for this, moderated by graphite instead of water so they could operate with un-enriched natural uranium.  Windscale didn't even produce power.  The N reactor was being adapted to co-produce power, but was closed after Chernobyl.  People got the idea that a graphite-moderated, water-cooled plant with a "positive void coefficient" (lose water and the reaction accelerates) was a Very Bad Idea.

    There's a good summary of the isotopic content of used reactor fuel here:

    https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx

    Note that no light-water reactor yields more than 60% Pu-239 in the used fuel.

    Replies: @A123

  43. @A123
    @Mr. Rational

    I concur with “it’s complicated”.

    For electric vehicles one also has to take proper credit for Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems [KERS] (a.k.a. regenerative braking). A well executed electric vehicle concept will recapture some % of the energy associated with deceleration.

    Also important to consider -- An IC engine will typically last the life of the car. A high performance battery pack will have to be replaced every 5 years or so. This has cost and environmental impact for the total lifecycle.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    For electric vehicles one also has to take proper credit for Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems [KERS] (a.k.a. regenerative braking).

    Also for hybrids, but there’s another factor for hybrids:  they typically use Atkinson-cycle engines which are more efficient than your regular ICE.  Guess how I know just what kind of advantage it provides?

    A high performance battery pack will have to be replaced every 5 years or so. This has cost and environmental impact for the total lifecycle.

    7.5 years so far and still going strong on mine.

  44. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    PRISM is air-cooled in shutdown and it’s a pool-type reactor, so no problem. Passive safety is a great thing.
     
    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?

    (I do not mind if you answer, “Politics!” but this same answer has been given by various random persons regarding nuclear for the past 40 years. That answer is brief but not very illuminating. I ask because you seem to have some relevant knowledge, so a technical and/or commercial answer would be appreciated at your discretion.)

    Replies: @A123, @Mr. Rational

    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?

    At least three reasons.

    1.  For a long time, the NRC didn’t even have regulations governing the certification of a reactor that was not cooled by light water.  That ruled out heavy-water and molten salt reactors as well.

    2.  There are major financial and managerial risks involved with the first-of-a-kind anything.  Look at the 4 AP1000 projects started in the previous decade; two have been abandoned and the other two are way over budget and behind schedule (though approaching completion).

    3.  There’s no established infrastructure to support the fuel cycle, and that has big economies of scale.

    The Trump administration is doing something about #2.  The NuScale project at UAMPS is receiving something like $1.4 billion to help prove the concept.  But basically, if you’re going to build one of something, it’s going to be hand-built and cost a fortune; if you’re going to build 500 or 5000, you can do it vastly cheaper AND better because you can automate and stop making beginner’s mistakes.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. Rational

    I provided background on the NuScale/UAMPS effort here:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-117/#comment-4145009

    NuScale will be adding to their effort at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) / Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS). When they complete both programs that will give them a fleet of 24 SMR's. And, the SRS site is highly favorable for additional 12-packs. In the South, A/C's are still running in late October versus 80°+ humid daily weather.

    While this is still a LWR effort, hopefully it will change regulator attitudes away from ultra large, high risk projects like AP1000.

    The original NuScale plan was to source 100% U.S. The most recent releases indicate a significant South Korean investment in the project via their nuclear champion, Doosan Heavy Industry Corp [DHIC].

    Has anyone heard specifics of the technical split?

    PEACE 😇

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_2IZuA9dlXA/XG-Y9nFaAKI/AAAAAAAAJCY/lJY05wbVjmoGreZFMvUTQDRfu8Vuy2HxQCLcBGAs/s1600/F2.large.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  45. @Cloudbuster
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There are plenty on the left who favor zero population growth or population reduction. Some people believe the pandemic response is the beginning of a move to identify and "make redundant" large swaths of the population.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Oliver D. Smith

    Recognising overpopulation is a minority viewpoint among ideologues – it’s denied by capitalists, religious conservatives, white nationalists, Marxists, socialists and SJWs.

    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don’t want to decrease the fertility rates of white people – they’re no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US – he’s telling white American families to have more kids…

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Oliver D. Smith


    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don’t want to decrease the fertility rates of white people – they’re no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.
     
    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world's population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend. I think that this is relevant. Don't you?

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US – he’s telling white American families to have more kids…
     
    Then Sailer is right.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Oliver D. Smith

  46. @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?
     
    For the current generation of Light Water Reactors [LWR] versus Thorium LFTR, the answer is the Cold War and the Military Industrial Complex. Running U-235 LWR with fuel rods that are mostly U-238 yields neutron capture created Pu-239. The MIC plan was to recover that Plutonium for nukes.

    Even though changing to non-proliferation technologies has been the obvious choice for 20+ years the NRC is a hideously moribund bureacracy, and most of their rules assume LWR technology. Gen IV solutions like LFTR are bottled up due to regulatory uncertainty.
    ____

    I'll let MR speak to PRISM specifically, but I suspect similar obstacles.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Running U-235 LWR with fuel rods that are mostly U-238 yields neutron capture created Pu-239. The MIC plan was to recover that Plutonium for nukes.

    That’s the caricature that the anti-nuclear activists have been painting since the 1960’s.  The truth is quite a bit different.

    Weapons-grade plutonium is at least 93% Pu-239.  Pu-238 is a massive heat generator, and Pu-240 is non-fissile but has a high rate of spontaneous fissions.  This is not a problem in a reactor.  In a bomb the heat degrades your implosion explosives, and spontaneous fissions can trigger the chain reaction before the implosion is complete and slash the yield to almost nothing (a “fizzle”).  Ergo, you want as little of that going on as you can practically get.  Problem is you can’t separate the different isotopes by chemical means, so whatever you make, you’re pretty much stuck with.

    In a LWR, you’ve got a thermal neutron spectrum which can generate Pu-239, but as soon as it’s formed it is a target for more neutrons.  It’ll fission about 65% of the time when hit, but the other 35% of the time you get reactions like (n,2n) forming Pu-238, or (n,γ) forming Pu-240.  And since neither isotope is fissile, they build up over time.

    Time is a big issue, because refueling your typical commercial LWR requires shutting it down, letting the really hot stuff decay, then swapping fuel rods before closing it up again.  This is a process which usually takes a month.  Because that’s so time-consuming, such reactors usually run on 18-month cycles and refuel in spring one year, fall the following year, spring 2 years later, etc.  This means there is a LOT of time for the plutonium formed in the reactor to be further mutated.  What comes out is utterly useless for nuclear weapons.

    Making weapons-grade material requires a whole different approach.  You use reactors which can refuel while in operation, and you push the fuel through in a matter of months or weeks so that the Pu-239 you make doesn’t have long to capture neutrons and become something else.  Then you let the fuel cool for a while and reprocess it.  The Windscale reactor and the Hanford N reactor were designed for this, moderated by graphite instead of water so they could operate with un-enriched natural uranium.  Windscale didn’t even produce power.  The N reactor was being adapted to co-produce power, but was closed after Chernobyl.  People got the idea that a graphite-moderated, water-cooled plant with a “positive void coefficient” (lose water and the reaction accelerates) was a Very Bad Idea.

    There’s a good summary of the isotopic content of used reactor fuel here:

    https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx

    Note that no light-water reactor yields more than 60% Pu-239 in the used fuel.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. Rational


    That’s the caricature that the anti-nuclear activists have been painting since the 1960’s. The truth is quite a bit different. Weapons-grade plutonium is at least 93% Pu-239.
    ...
    Making weapons-grade material requires a whole different approach. You use reactors which can refuel while in operation, and you push the fuel through in a matter of months or weeks so that the Pu-239 you make doesn’t have long to capture neutrons and become something else.
     
    The Generals/Admirals were wrong before the activists. When the MIC spiked the ORNL LFTR effort they did not grasp the high frequency for Pu-239 neutron capture. Once the LFTR concept had been killed by mistake, the MIC had nothing to gain by conceding error.

    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood... it was far too late. "Political Face" would be lost by performing a 180° and returning to the technically superior LFTR technology.

    If rationality was the road to success, we would have had cheap abundant Thorium electricity decades ago. Alas, politics and rationality are rarely travelling companions.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  47. @Mr. Rational
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Why is PRISM not already in use in the United States?
     
    At least three reasons.

    1.  For a long time, the NRC didn't even have regulations governing the certification of a reactor that was not cooled by light water.  That ruled out heavy-water and molten salt reactors as well.

    2.  There are major financial and managerial risks involved with the first-of-a-kind anything.  Look at the 4 AP1000 projects started in the previous decade; two have been abandoned and the other two are way over budget and behind schedule (though approaching completion).

    3.  There's no established infrastructure to support the fuel cycle, and that has big economies of scale.

    The Trump administration is doing something about #2.  The NuScale project at UAMPS is receiving something like $1.4 billion to help prove the concept.  But basically, if you're going to build one of something, it's going to be hand-built and cost a fortune; if you're going to build 500 or 5000, you can do it vastly cheaper AND better because you can automate and stop making beginner's mistakes.

    Replies: @A123

    I provided background on the NuScale/UAMPS effort here:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-117/#comment-4145009

    NuScale will be adding to their effort at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) / Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS). When they complete both programs that will give them a fleet of 24 SMR’s. And, the SRS site is highly favorable for additional 12-packs. In the South, A/C’s are still running in late October versus 80°+ humid daily weather.

    While this is still a LWR effort, hopefully it will change regulator attitudes away from ultra large, high risk projects like AP1000.

    The original NuScale plan was to source 100% U.S. The most recent releases indicate a significant South Korean investment in the project via their nuclear champion, Doosan Heavy Industry Corp [DHIC].

    Has anyone heard specifics of the technical split?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    While this is still a LWR effort, hopefully it will change regulator attitudes away from ultra large, high risk projects like AP1000.
     
    AP1000 is considerably simplified over Gen II designs, though not as radically so as NuScale.  It remains to be seen which can be make energy cheaper, due to differences in details like fuel enrichment.  France did a great job of cost-cutting when it was in series production of standard designs, not so much with short production runs.

    Then there are wildcards like the application of electron-beam welding to thick steel sections:

    https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/sheffield-forgemasters-to-lead-landmark-project-to-slash-nuclear-manufacturing-time/

    I haven't seen anything to suggest that the same techniques can't be used to make AP1000-scale vessels and steam generators and such, and 1 AP1000 is equivalent to about 18 NuScales.  It's going to be a race worth watching, that's for sure.
  48. @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    Running U-235 LWR with fuel rods that are mostly U-238 yields neutron capture created Pu-239. The MIC plan was to recover that Plutonium for nukes.
     
    That's the caricature that the anti-nuclear activists have been painting since the 1960's.  The truth is quite a bit different.

    Weapons-grade plutonium is at least 93% Pu-239.  Pu-238 is a massive heat generator, and Pu-240 is non-fissile but has a high rate of spontaneous fissions.  This is not a problem in a reactor.  In a bomb the heat degrades your implosion explosives, and spontaneous fissions can trigger the chain reaction before the implosion is complete and slash the yield to almost nothing (a "fizzle").  Ergo, you want as little of that going on as you can practically get.  Problem is you can't separate the different isotopes by chemical means, so whatever you make, you're pretty much stuck with.

    In a LWR, you've got a thermal neutron spectrum which can generate Pu-239, but as soon as it's formed it is a target for more neutrons.  It'll fission about 65% of the time when hit, but the other 35% of the time you get reactions like (n,2n) forming Pu-238, or (n,γ) forming Pu-240.  And since neither isotope is fissile, they build up over time.

    Time is a big issue, because refueling your typical commercial LWR requires shutting it down, letting the really hot stuff decay, then swapping fuel rods before closing it up again.  This is a process which usually takes a month.  Because that's so time-consuming, such reactors usually run on 18-month cycles and refuel in spring one year, fall the following year, spring 2 years later, etc.  This means there is a LOT of time for the plutonium formed in the reactor to be further mutated.  What comes out is utterly useless for nuclear weapons.

    Making weapons-grade material requires a whole different approach.  You use reactors which can refuel while in operation, and you push the fuel through in a matter of months or weeks so that the Pu-239 you make doesn't have long to capture neutrons and become something else.  Then you let the fuel cool for a while and reprocess it.  The Windscale reactor and the Hanford N reactor were designed for this, moderated by graphite instead of water so they could operate with un-enriched natural uranium.  Windscale didn't even produce power.  The N reactor was being adapted to co-produce power, but was closed after Chernobyl.  People got the idea that a graphite-moderated, water-cooled plant with a "positive void coefficient" (lose water and the reaction accelerates) was a Very Bad Idea.

    There's a good summary of the isotopic content of used reactor fuel here:

    https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx

    Note that no light-water reactor yields more than 60% Pu-239 in the used fuel.

    Replies: @A123

    That’s the caricature that the anti-nuclear activists have been painting since the 1960’s. The truth is quite a bit different. Weapons-grade plutonium is at least 93% Pu-239.

    Making weapons-grade material requires a whole different approach. You use reactors which can refuel while in operation, and you push the fuel through in a matter of months or weeks so that the Pu-239 you make doesn’t have long to capture neutrons and become something else.

    The Generals/Admirals were wrong before the activists. When the MIC spiked the ORNL LFTR effort they did not grasp the high frequency for Pu-239 neutron capture. Once the LFTR concept had been killed by mistake, the MIC had nothing to gain by conceding error.

    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late. “Political Face” would be lost by performing a 180° and returning to the technically superior LFTR technology.

    If rationality was the road to success, we would have had cheap abundant Thorium electricity decades ago. Alas, politics and rationality are rarely travelling companions.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late.
     
    Are you kidding?  Those facts were known in the 1940's.  They were essential to the ways that the plutonium-generating reactors were designed and run before making the bomb in the Trinity test.

    This is why fast-spectrum power reactors like PRISM aren't really a proliferation risk.  If you can't swap lots of blanket rods in and out while in operation, you're not going to wind up with weapons-grade material.

    Replies: @A123

  49. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Cloudbuster

    Recognising overpopulation is a minority viewpoint among ideologues - it's denied by capitalists, religious conservatives, white nationalists, Marxists, socialists and SJWs.

    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don't want to decrease the fertility rates of white people - they're no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US - he's telling white American families to have more kids...

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don’t want to decrease the fertility rates of white people – they’re no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.

    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world’s population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend. I think that this is relevant. Don’t you?

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US – he’s telling white American families to have more kids…

    Then Sailer is right.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world’s population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend.
     
    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children. As such European whites and their overseas progeny have to accept the consequences of their own actions.

    These societies are what you get when you combine capitalism, consumerism, urbanisation, mass education and mass media.

    Nobody forced European whites and their overseas progeny to create societies in which people no longer want to reproduce.

    European whites and their overseas progeny have spread this incredibly destructive social model throughout the developed world, destroying one society after another. Some East Asian nations now have total fertility rates around 0.8. That's well below half the replacement level.

    We have doomed our own society and we have doomed lots of other people's societies. We have absolutely no-one but ourselves to blame.

    We have also imposed transgenderism, worship of homosexuals, celebrity trash culture and every imaginable form of degeneracy on other people's societies.

    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.

    Replies: @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund

    No, Sailer is wrong.

    Western countries have high per-capita carbon emissions - so the less people born in them - the most effective and positive impact on climate-change.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  50. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Oliver D. Smith


    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don’t want to decrease the fertility rates of white people – they’re no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.
     
    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world's population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend. I think that this is relevant. Don't you?

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US – he’s telling white American families to have more kids…
     
    Then Sailer is right.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Oliver D. Smith

    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world’s population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend.

    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children. As such European whites and their overseas progeny have to accept the consequences of their own actions.

    These societies are what you get when you combine capitalism, consumerism, urbanisation, mass education and mass media.

    Nobody forced European whites and their overseas progeny to create societies in which people no longer want to reproduce.

    European whites and their overseas progeny have spread this incredibly destructive social model throughout the developed world, destroying one society after another. Some East Asian nations now have total fertility rates around 0.8. That’s well below half the replacement level.

    We have doomed our own society and we have doomed lots of other people’s societies. We have absolutely no-one but ourselves to blame.

    We have also imposed transgenderism, worship of homosexuals, celebrity trash culture and every imaginable form of degeneracy on other people’s societies.

    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    But, but, but, a glass half full, etc., etc.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.
     
    This is just as well, for nobody will.

    If we wish to survive then we must save ourselves. If one is young, white, healthy and more or less normal—and has an IQ over 110—then one should find a way to marry and make as many children as one can.

    Think eight. Start now.

    A couple that has two heavy U.S. college loans is screwed. I get it. On the other hand, the couple's children won't starve and once one has a few children the state will help to support them. Recognize that children today don't starve: they'll be okay. (Please ignore the ludicrous propaganda to the contrary: when you see fat children all around you and realize, bizarrely, that their parents are the poor ones, you can believe your own eyes.) Anyway, if one wishes our people and civilization to survive, can you think of an alternative?


    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children.
     
    Yes, that's about the shape of it.

    (In case a young reader asks me, ”But did you follow your own advice, old man?” I can only report that I have five living children. There was also a miscarriage. The credit goes largely to my wife, whose pregnancies were not easy. That is all I can say.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

  51. @A123
    @Mr. Rational

    I provided background on the NuScale/UAMPS effort here:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-117/#comment-4145009

    NuScale will be adding to their effort at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) / Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS). When they complete both programs that will give them a fleet of 24 SMR's. And, the SRS site is highly favorable for additional 12-packs. In the South, A/C's are still running in late October versus 80°+ humid daily weather.

    While this is still a LWR effort, hopefully it will change regulator attitudes away from ultra large, high risk projects like AP1000.

    The original NuScale plan was to source 100% U.S. The most recent releases indicate a significant South Korean investment in the project via their nuclear champion, Doosan Heavy Industry Corp [DHIC].

    Has anyone heard specifics of the technical split?

    PEACE 😇

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_2IZuA9dlXA/XG-Y9nFaAKI/AAAAAAAAJCY/lJY05wbVjmoGreZFMvUTQDRfu8Vuy2HxQCLcBGAs/s1600/F2.large.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    While this is still a LWR effort, hopefully it will change regulator attitudes away from ultra large, high risk projects like AP1000.

    AP1000 is considerably simplified over Gen II designs, though not as radically so as NuScale.  It remains to be seen which can be make energy cheaper, due to differences in details like fuel enrichment.  France did a great job of cost-cutting when it was in series production of standard designs, not so much with short production runs.

    Then there are wildcards like the application of electron-beam welding to thick steel sections:

    https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/sheffield-forgemasters-to-lead-landmark-project-to-slash-nuclear-manufacturing-time/

    I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the same techniques can’t be used to make AP1000-scale vessels and steam generators and such, and 1 AP1000 is equivalent to about 18 NuScales.  It’s going to be a race worth watching, that’s for sure.

  52. @A123
    @Mr. Rational


    That’s the caricature that the anti-nuclear activists have been painting since the 1960’s. The truth is quite a bit different. Weapons-grade plutonium is at least 93% Pu-239.
    ...
    Making weapons-grade material requires a whole different approach. You use reactors which can refuel while in operation, and you push the fuel through in a matter of months or weeks so that the Pu-239 you make doesn’t have long to capture neutrons and become something else.
     
    The Generals/Admirals were wrong before the activists. When the MIC spiked the ORNL LFTR effort they did not grasp the high frequency for Pu-239 neutron capture. Once the LFTR concept had been killed by mistake, the MIC had nothing to gain by conceding error.

    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood... it was far too late. "Political Face" would be lost by performing a 180° and returning to the technically superior LFTR technology.

    If rationality was the road to success, we would have had cheap abundant Thorium electricity decades ago. Alas, politics and rationality are rarely travelling companions.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late.

    Are you kidding?  Those facts were known in the 1940’s.  They were essential to the ways that the plutonium-generating reactors were designed and run before making the bomb in the Trinity test.

    This is why fast-spectrum power reactors like PRISM aren’t really a proliferation risk.  If you can’t swap lots of blanket rods in and out while in operation, you’re not going to wind up with weapons-grade material.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Mr. Rational



    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late.
     
    Are you kidding? Those facts were known in the 1940’s.
     
    Not kidding. Sadly dismayed by the human condition.

    There are gaping chasms between:
    -- Knowing
    -- Understanding
    -- Accepting

    The Generals/Admirals should have "known". However as a group they failed somewhere along the road to "understanding" and/or "accepting".

    Have you ever noticed that large committees are often collectively very stupid, even if the members are bright? The Pentagon is not immune to this effect.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  53. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world’s population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend.
     
    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children. As such European whites and their overseas progeny have to accept the consequences of their own actions.

    These societies are what you get when you combine capitalism, consumerism, urbanisation, mass education and mass media.

    Nobody forced European whites and their overseas progeny to create societies in which people no longer want to reproduce.

    European whites and their overseas progeny have spread this incredibly destructive social model throughout the developed world, destroying one society after another. Some East Asian nations now have total fertility rates around 0.8. That's well below half the replacement level.

    We have doomed our own society and we have doomed lots of other people's societies. We have absolutely no-one but ourselves to blame.

    We have also imposed transgenderism, worship of homosexuals, celebrity trash culture and every imaginable form of degeneracy on other people's societies.

    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.

    Replies: @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

    But, but, but, a glass half full, etc., etc.

  54. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world’s population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend.
     
    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children. As such European whites and their overseas progeny have to accept the consequences of their own actions.

    These societies are what you get when you combine capitalism, consumerism, urbanisation, mass education and mass media.

    Nobody forced European whites and their overseas progeny to create societies in which people no longer want to reproduce.

    European whites and their overseas progeny have spread this incredibly destructive social model throughout the developed world, destroying one society after another. Some East Asian nations now have total fertility rates around 0.8. That's well below half the replacement level.

    We have doomed our own society and we have doomed lots of other people's societies. We have absolutely no-one but ourselves to blame.

    We have also imposed transgenderism, worship of homosexuals, celebrity trash culture and every imaginable form of degeneracy on other people's societies.

    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.

    Replies: @iffen, @V. K. Ovelund

    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.

    This is just as well, for nobody will.

    If we wish to survive then we must save ourselves. If one is young, white, healthy and more or less normal—and has an IQ over 110—then one should find a way to marry and make as many children as one can.

    Think eight. Start now.

    A couple that has two heavy U.S. college loans is screwed. I get it. On the other hand, the couple’s children won’t starve and once one has a few children the state will help to support them. Recognize that children today don’t starve: they’ll be okay. (Please ignore the ludicrous propaganda to the contrary: when you see fat children all around you and realize, bizarrely, that their parents are the poor ones, you can believe your own eyes.) Anyway, if one wishes our people and civilization to survive, can you think of an alternative?

    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children.

    Yes, that’s about the shape of it.

    (In case a young reader asks me, ”But did you follow your own advice, old man?” I can only report that I have five living children. There was also a miscarriage. The credit goes largely to my wife, whose pregnancies were not easy. That is all I can say.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Anyway, if one wishes our people and civilization to survive, can you think of an alternative?
     
    I certainly do not want our civilisation in its present form to survive. Western civilisation in its present form is a failure. And it's getting worse.

    That doesn't mean I advocate any kind of violent revolution. They rarely have positive outcomes. And it doesn't mean I'm one of those right-wing nutters hoping for a civil war that they will inevitably lose. But I do think that unless western civilisation can be made a lot healthier it's not worth trying to save it. I certainly have no desire to save our current economic system, our current political systems or our current degenerate culture.

    My hope is that eventually things will get bad enough that people will realise that things have to change. The collapse of the US economy would be a good start but unfortunately that's not going to happen because the US will go to war (and will be quite prepared to risk nuclear war) to defend the current system and the results of that will be catastrophic for everyone. But I fear that as things get worse we in the West will just go on getting crazier.

    I cannot see how a few individual white people having more children is going to change anything for the better. The only valid reason for having kids is a desire to have kids. If you like kids then by all means have them, but thinking that you can save anything by doing so is pure wishful thinking. At this point the last thing we need is more crazy white people. What we especially do not need is more crazy white Christians.

    The best chance is for the US to continue to go down the toilet and for China to continue getting stronger.

    Maybe the re-election of Trump will be a good thing. With any luck it will permanently discredit American culture in the eyes of the rest of the world and permanently discredit the political Right. It will certainly accelerate the process of the US going down the toilet. The Cultural Revolution will move into top gear and if the world is lucky the US will become an ungovernable basket case. From an accelerationist point of view Trump is the best choice.

    Of course the downside is he will probably provoke war with China, in which case we won't have to worry any more because we'll all be dead.

    As for "our people" it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean white people you might want to take a long hard look at what white people are really like these days.
  55. @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late.
     
    Are you kidding?  Those facts were known in the 1940's.  They were essential to the ways that the plutonium-generating reactors were designed and run before making the bomb in the Trinity test.

    This is why fast-spectrum power reactors like PRISM aren't really a proliferation risk.  If you can't swap lots of blanket rods in and out while in operation, you're not going to wind up with weapons-grade material.

    Replies: @A123

    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late.

    Are you kidding? Those facts were known in the 1940’s.

    Not kidding. Sadly dismayed by the human condition.

    There are gaping chasms between:
    — Knowing
    — Understanding
    — Accepting

    The Generals/Admirals should have “known”. However as a group they failed somewhere along the road to “understanding” and/or “accepting”.

    Have you ever noticed that large committees are often collectively very stupid, even if the members are bright? The Pentagon is not immune to this effect.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @A123


    The Generals/Admirals should have “known”. However as a group they failed somewhere along the road to “understanding” and/or “accepting”.
     
    Believe me, they accepted it after a test bomb made from Pu bred in a Magnox reactor (irradiated far less than LWR fuel) turned out to be a dud.  They never tried making another bomb from such material.  Forget the propaganda, look at the revealed preference.
  56. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Oliver D. Smith


    WNs/alt-right might talk about overpopulation in the third world but they deny the Western world is overpopulated and so they don’t want to decrease the fertility rates of white people – they’re no better than the other anti-science overpopulation deniers.
     
    In 1900, European whites and their overseas progeny were 30 percent of the world's population. By 2100, 3 percent, on current trend. I think that this is relevant. Don't you?

    Steve Sailer has countless articles about the dangers of African population growth but when it comes to the US – he’s telling white American families to have more kids…
     
    Then Sailer is right.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Oliver D. Smith

    No, Sailer is wrong.

    Western countries have high per-capita carbon emissions – so the less people born in them – the most effective and positive impact on climate-change.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Western countries have high per-capita carbon emissions – so the less people born in them – the most effective and positive impact on climate-change.
     
    Population in western countries is swelling because of immigration.  If you want populations to go down, you have to start with the turd worlders.

    You also have to divert effort from the care and feeding of turd worlders to de-carbonizing energy.  Turd worlders can't do it themselves; they're not bright enough.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

  57. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    I have no idea why we should expect anybody to feel sorry for us.
     
    This is just as well, for nobody will.

    If we wish to survive then we must save ourselves. If one is young, white, healthy and more or less normal—and has an IQ over 110—then one should find a way to marry and make as many children as one can.

    Think eight. Start now.

    A couple that has two heavy U.S. college loans is screwed. I get it. On the other hand, the couple's children won't starve and once one has a few children the state will help to support them. Recognize that children today don't starve: they'll be okay. (Please ignore the ludicrous propaganda to the contrary: when you see fat children all around you and realize, bizarrely, that their parents are the poor ones, you can believe your own eyes.) Anyway, if one wishes our people and civilization to survive, can you think of an alternative?


    European whites and their overseas progeny have created a civilisation that has evolved to the point that very few people who live in that civilisation have any interest in having children.
     
    Yes, that's about the shape of it.

    (In case a young reader asks me, ”But did you follow your own advice, old man?” I can only report that I have five living children. There was also a miscarriage. The credit goes largely to my wife, whose pregnancies were not easy. That is all I can say.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Anyway, if one wishes our people and civilization to survive, can you think of an alternative?

    I certainly do not want our civilisation in its present form to survive. Western civilisation in its present form is a failure. And it’s getting worse.

    That doesn’t mean I advocate any kind of violent revolution. They rarely have positive outcomes. And it doesn’t mean I’m one of those right-wing nutters hoping for a civil war that they will inevitably lose. But I do think that unless western civilisation can be made a lot healthier it’s not worth trying to save it. I certainly have no desire to save our current economic system, our current political systems or our current degenerate culture.

    My hope is that eventually things will get bad enough that people will realise that things have to change. The collapse of the US economy would be a good start but unfortunately that’s not going to happen because the US will go to war (and will be quite prepared to risk nuclear war) to defend the current system and the results of that will be catastrophic for everyone. But I fear that as things get worse we in the West will just go on getting crazier.

    I cannot see how a few individual white people having more children is going to change anything for the better. The only valid reason for having kids is a desire to have kids. If you like kids then by all means have them, but thinking that you can save anything by doing so is pure wishful thinking. At this point the last thing we need is more crazy white people. What we especially do not need is more crazy white Christians.

    The best chance is for the US to continue to go down the toilet and for China to continue getting stronger.

    Maybe the re-election of Trump will be a good thing. With any luck it will permanently discredit American culture in the eyes of the rest of the world and permanently discredit the political Right. It will certainly accelerate the process of the US going down the toilet. The Cultural Revolution will move into top gear and if the world is lucky the US will become an ungovernable basket case. From an accelerationist point of view Trump is the best choice.

    Of course the downside is he will probably provoke war with China, in which case we won’t have to worry any more because we’ll all be dead.

    As for “our people” it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean white people you might want to take a long hard look at what white people are really like these days.

  58. @A123
    @Mr. Rational



    By the time the technical facts you presented were fully understood… it was far too late.
     
    Are you kidding? Those facts were known in the 1940’s.
     
    Not kidding. Sadly dismayed by the human condition.

    There are gaping chasms between:
    -- Knowing
    -- Understanding
    -- Accepting

    The Generals/Admirals should have "known". However as a group they failed somewhere along the road to "understanding" and/or "accepting".

    Have you ever noticed that large committees are often collectively very stupid, even if the members are bright? The Pentagon is not immune to this effect.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The Generals/Admirals should have “known”. However as a group they failed somewhere along the road to “understanding” and/or “accepting”.

    Believe me, they accepted it after a test bomb made from Pu bred in a Magnox reactor (irradiated far less than LWR fuel) turned out to be a dud.  They never tried making another bomb from such material.  Forget the propaganda, look at the revealed preference.

  59. @Oliver D. Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund

    No, Sailer is wrong.

    Western countries have high per-capita carbon emissions - so the less people born in them - the most effective and positive impact on climate-change.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Western countries have high per-capita carbon emissions – so the less people born in them – the most effective and positive impact on climate-change.

    Population in western countries is swelling because of immigration.  If you want populations to go down, you have to start with the turd worlders.

    You also have to divert effort from the care and feeding of turd worlders to de-carbonizing energy.  Turd worlders can’t do it themselves; they’re not bright enough.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    @Mr. Rational

    Misleading. There's still population growth in most Western countries by natural means (more births than deaths). The population growth isn't entirely because of net-migration (immigration) but no doubt net-migration explains a large % of it. If you're concerned about unsustainable population growth and overpopulation you have to discuss both. The far-right's obsession with only immigration of black or brown people doesn't help solve anything and is actually counterproductive.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  60. @Mr. Rational
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Western countries have high per-capita carbon emissions – so the less people born in them – the most effective and positive impact on climate-change.
     
    Population in western countries is swelling because of immigration.  If you want populations to go down, you have to start with the turd worlders.

    You also have to divert effort from the care and feeding of turd worlders to de-carbonizing energy.  Turd worlders can't do it themselves; they're not bright enough.

    Replies: @Oliver D. Smith

    Misleading. There’s still population growth in most Western countries by natural means (more births than deaths). The population growth isn’t entirely because of net-migration (immigration) but no doubt net-migration explains a large % of it. If you’re concerned about unsustainable population growth and overpopulation you have to discuss both. The far-right’s obsession with only immigration of black or brown people doesn’t help solve anything and is actually counterproductive.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Misleading. There’s still population growth in most Western countries by natural means (more births than deaths).
     
    More than 100% of net population growth is from turd-worlders and their (usually welfare-supported) children.  (This is why the hysterical reaction to Trump's public-charge rule.)  Total fertility rate of White women in the USA is under 2; in Italy, it's down to 1.29.  You need about 2.1 just to have a STABLE population.

    The population growth isn’t entirely because of net-migration (immigration) but no doubt net-migration explains a large % of it.
     
    If it weren't for non-whites (both native and immigrants) and their usually-dumb children, the USA would have had NPG for decades already.

    If you’re concerned about unsustainable population growth and overpopulation you have to discuss both.
     
    And then in the very next sentence....

    The far-right’s obsession with only immigration of black or brown people doesn’t help solve anything and is actually counterproductive.
     
    The facts are the facts.  If you can't name the problem, you can't do anything about it.  I'm not afraid of the R-word, so don't go there.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  61. @Oliver D. Smith
    @Mr. Rational

    Misleading. There's still population growth in most Western countries by natural means (more births than deaths). The population growth isn't entirely because of net-migration (immigration) but no doubt net-migration explains a large % of it. If you're concerned about unsustainable population growth and overpopulation you have to discuss both. The far-right's obsession with only immigration of black or brown people doesn't help solve anything and is actually counterproductive.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Misleading. There’s still population growth in most Western countries by natural means (more births than deaths).

    More than 100% of net population growth is from turd-worlders and their (usually welfare-supported) children.  (This is why the hysterical reaction to Trump’s public-charge rule.)  Total fertility rate of White women in the USA is under 2; in Italy, it’s down to 1.29.  You need about 2.1 just to have a STABLE population.

    The population growth isn’t entirely because of net-migration (immigration) but no doubt net-migration explains a large % of it.

    If it weren’t for non-whites (both native and immigrants) and their usually-dumb children, the USA would have had NPG for decades already.

    If you’re concerned about unsustainable population growth and overpopulation you have to discuss both.

    And then in the very next sentence….

    The far-right’s obsession with only immigration of black or brown people doesn’t help solve anything and is actually counterproductive.

    The facts are the facts.  If you can’t name the problem, you can’t do anything about it.  I’m not afraid of the R-word, so don’t go there.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    ... I’m not afraid of the R-word...
     
    If they swap the R-word for the WS-word, “white supremacist,” then are you afraid?

    I do not know whether @Oliver D. Smith is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mr. Rational

  62. @Mr. Rational
    @Oliver D. Smith


    Misleading. There’s still population growth in most Western countries by natural means (more births than deaths).
     
    More than 100% of net population growth is from turd-worlders and their (usually welfare-supported) children.  (This is why the hysterical reaction to Trump's public-charge rule.)  Total fertility rate of White women in the USA is under 2; in Italy, it's down to 1.29.  You need about 2.1 just to have a STABLE population.

    The population growth isn’t entirely because of net-migration (immigration) but no doubt net-migration explains a large % of it.
     
    If it weren't for non-whites (both native and immigrants) and their usually-dumb children, the USA would have had NPG for decades already.

    If you’re concerned about unsustainable population growth and overpopulation you have to discuss both.
     
    And then in the very next sentence....

    The far-right’s obsession with only immigration of black or brown people doesn’t help solve anything and is actually counterproductive.
     
    The facts are the facts.  If you can't name the problem, you can't do anything about it.  I'm not afraid of the R-word, so don't go there.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    … I’m not afraid of the R-word…

    If they swap the R-word for the WS-word, “white supremacist,” then are you afraid?

    I do not know whether @Oliver D. Smith is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not know whether @Oliver D. Smith is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.
     
    I should have scanned his past comments before remarking. His writing style does not strike me as Jewish. My observation is not very interesting, anyway, but for what little it's worth, I believe that Smith is sincere.

    Many Gentiles believe as Smith believes. Sorry for distracting the topic.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Mr. Rational
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm not a supremacist.  I don't want to rule over anyone.  I'm a separatist; I want nothing to do with them.

    It's not my duty to create a functioning society for people who are unable to make their own.

    Replies: @iffen

  63. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    ... I’m not afraid of the R-word...
     
    If they swap the R-word for the WS-word, “white supremacist,” then are you afraid?

    I do not know whether @Oliver D. Smith is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mr. Rational

    I do not know whether is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.

    I should have scanned his past comments before remarking. His writing style does not strike me as Jewish. My observation is not very interesting, anyway, but for what little it’s worth, I believe that Smith is sincere.

    Many Gentiles believe as Smith believes. Sorry for distracting the topic.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I believe that Smith is sincere.

    Many Gentiles believe as Smith believes.
     
    The belief that overpopulation is a massive problem and a mortal threat is practically universal among whites (including white gentiles). It's an idea that has been very aggressively pushed (largely by well-meaning people) for more than half a century. Back in the 1960s it seemed quite plausible.

    What has happened is that demographic collapse (which was starting to happen in some western countries as early as the beginning of the 20th century) has accelerated and has spread beyond the West and is now afflicting the entire developed world and (to an increasing degree) parts of the less-developed world as well. The facts on the ground have changed. The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.

    But most people are either unaware that the facts on the ground have changed or they're incapable of adapting their beliefs to new evidence. They still believe in overpopulation because it has become an integral part of the belief system of white people.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  64. @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not know whether @Oliver D. Smith is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.
     
    I should have scanned his past comments before remarking. His writing style does not strike me as Jewish. My observation is not very interesting, anyway, but for what little it's worth, I believe that Smith is sincere.

    Many Gentiles believe as Smith believes. Sorry for distracting the topic.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I believe that Smith is sincere.

    Many Gentiles believe as Smith believes.

    The belief that overpopulation is a massive problem and a mortal threat is practically universal among whites (including white gentiles). It’s an idea that has been very aggressively pushed (largely by well-meaning people) for more than half a century. Back in the 1960s it seemed quite plausible.

    What has happened is that demographic collapse (which was starting to happen in some western countries as early as the beginning of the 20th century) has accelerated and has spread beyond the West and is now afflicting the entire developed world and (to an increasing degree) parts of the less-developed world as well. The facts on the ground have changed. The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.

    But most people are either unaware that the facts on the ground have changed or they’re incapable of adapting their beliefs to new evidence. They still believe in overpopulation because it has become an integral part of the belief system of white people.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.
     
    Look at the projections for the population of Africa and say that again.  Look at the TFR of countries like Nigeria and Niger.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  65. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    ... I’m not afraid of the R-word...
     
    If they swap the R-word for the WS-word, “white supremacist,” then are you afraid?

    I do not know whether @Oliver D. Smith is Jewish. His handle suggests not but his angle of attack suggests so.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Mr. Rational

    I’m not a supremacist.  I don’t want to rule over anyone.  I’m a separatist; I want nothing to do with them.

    It’s not my duty to create a functioning society for people who are unable to make their own.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Mr. Rational

    It’s not my duty to create a functioning society for people who are unable to make their own.

    Yes it is.

  66. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I believe that Smith is sincere.

    Many Gentiles believe as Smith believes.
     
    The belief that overpopulation is a massive problem and a mortal threat is practically universal among whites (including white gentiles). It's an idea that has been very aggressively pushed (largely by well-meaning people) for more than half a century. Back in the 1960s it seemed quite plausible.

    What has happened is that demographic collapse (which was starting to happen in some western countries as early as the beginning of the 20th century) has accelerated and has spread beyond the West and is now afflicting the entire developed world and (to an increasing degree) parts of the less-developed world as well. The facts on the ground have changed. The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.

    But most people are either unaware that the facts on the ground have changed or they're incapable of adapting their beliefs to new evidence. They still believe in overpopulation because it has become an integral part of the belief system of white people.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.

    Look at the projections for the population of Africa and say that again.  Look at the TFR of countries like Nigeria and Niger.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational



    The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.
     
    Look at the projections for the population of Africa and say that again. Look at the TFR of countries like Nigeria and Niger.
     
    As more and more of the world becomes fully integrated into the globalist economic system and as western culture and values continue to be aggressively exported more and more countries have seen their fertility collapse. And these trends will continue. Sub-Saharan Africa just happens to be a few decades behind but their TFRs will crash as well.

    We know that demographic collapse has zero to do with race because the TFR of American blacks has already fallen below replacement levels. And East Asian fertility rates have gone right down the toilet.

    Western civilisation is the cause of demographic collapse and inevitably the entire planet is headed for being a western-derived (and mostly American) monoculture. So TFR in every country is going to collapse. The collapse just started earlier in some countries.

    Western civilisation is so awesome that it leads inevitably to extinction. We in the West have achieved something that nobody has ever achieved before - we have created a civilisation that destroys itself without any outside aid. Only white people are clever enough to do something like that.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  67. @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.
     
    Look at the projections for the population of Africa and say that again.  Look at the TFR of countries like Nigeria and Niger.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.

    Look at the projections for the population of Africa and say that again. Look at the TFR of countries like Nigeria and Niger.

    As more and more of the world becomes fully integrated into the globalist economic system and as western culture and values continue to be aggressively exported more and more countries have seen their fertility collapse. And these trends will continue. Sub-Saharan Africa just happens to be a few decades behind but their TFRs will crash as well.

    We know that demographic collapse has zero to do with race because the TFR of American blacks has already fallen below replacement levels. And East Asian fertility rates have gone right down the toilet.

    Western civilisation is the cause of demographic collapse and inevitably the entire planet is headed for being a western-derived (and mostly American) monoculture. So TFR in every country is going to collapse. The collapse just started earlier in some countries.

    Western civilisation is so awesome that it leads inevitably to extinction. We in the West have achieved something that nobody has ever achieved before – we have created a civilisation that destroys itself without any outside aid. Only white people are clever enough to do something like that.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    We know that demographic collapse has zero to do with race because the TFR of American blacks has already fallen below replacement levels.
     
    Go back to the graphs here.  TFR of black women in the USA is well over 2, maybe as high as 2.5.

    Further, that only applies to American blacks, who average about 20% White ancestry.  TFR in Niger in 2020 is 6.773, if you can trust the statistics kept by a turd-world government.  THAT is where the problem is.

  68. @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational



    The evidence no longer supports the notion that overpopulation is inevitable or that it is going to be a massive problem.
     
    Look at the projections for the population of Africa and say that again. Look at the TFR of countries like Nigeria and Niger.
     
    As more and more of the world becomes fully integrated into the globalist economic system and as western culture and values continue to be aggressively exported more and more countries have seen their fertility collapse. And these trends will continue. Sub-Saharan Africa just happens to be a few decades behind but their TFRs will crash as well.

    We know that demographic collapse has zero to do with race because the TFR of American blacks has already fallen below replacement levels. And East Asian fertility rates have gone right down the toilet.

    Western civilisation is the cause of demographic collapse and inevitably the entire planet is headed for being a western-derived (and mostly American) monoculture. So TFR in every country is going to collapse. The collapse just started earlier in some countries.

    Western civilisation is so awesome that it leads inevitably to extinction. We in the West have achieved something that nobody has ever achieved before - we have created a civilisation that destroys itself without any outside aid. Only white people are clever enough to do something like that.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    We know that demographic collapse has zero to do with race because the TFR of American blacks has already fallen below replacement levels.

    Go back to the graphs here.  TFR of black women in the USA is well over 2, maybe as high as 2.5.

    Further, that only applies to American blacks, who average about 20% White ancestry.  TFR in Niger in 2020 is 6.773, if you can trust the statistics kept by a turd-world government.  THAT is where the problem is.

  69. @Mr. Rational
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm not a supremacist.  I don't want to rule over anyone.  I'm a separatist; I want nothing to do with them.

    It's not my duty to create a functioning society for people who are unable to make their own.

    Replies: @iffen

    It’s not my duty to create a functioning society for people who are unable to make their own.

    Yes it is.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Disagree: V. K. Ovelund
  70. @Mr. Rational
    @Lars Porsena


    Do they save between 2/3rds and 4/5ths of fuel use because you are not counting the fuel used to generate the electricity sent to your house that you plug into?
     
    The electricity has to be accounted for separately, because it could come from just about anything.  Depending where you are, the season and even time of day, it could come from your own solar panels, a wind farm, hydro dams (most likely if you're in the BPA territory), coal, nuclear, natural gas, or even petroleum if you're in Hawaii or Puerto Rico.  Note that almost none of those other fuels come primarily from foreign sources, so there is a great deal more energy security associated with them.

    Regardless, the thermal efficiency of the electric plant is almost certainly higher than what an ICEV achieves.  Gas-fired CCGTs are now up to 62% efficiency, and the carbon emissions from gas are quite a bit lower than petroleum.


    I do not understand why people think electric cars should use any less fuel, apart from not understanding where the electricity comes from.
     
    I have a very deep understanding of that, and "it's complicated" barely scratches the surface.

    Replies: @A123, @Lars Porsena

    I’m a bit late with this reply but I will reply anyway.

    Yes, the 2 stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s now. That’s good. I find it curious though, that no one has tried to put a second stage heat-scavenging steam turbine on an ICE. ICE’s are more efficient than single stage turbines, only the dual stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s. But since the 2nd stage is heat scavenging, why not put a 2nd stage turbine on an ICE? Maybe they are running too cool to be efficient or maybe turbines is what turbine guys know and are comfortable with. Seems possible though.

    At any rate, as far as I can tell, you’re idea that the efficiency of the electric plant is certainly better than what the ICE in a car achieves is common but most likely completely wrong. Assuming they are built in the same year, the ICEs in a power plant are about the same efficiency as the ICE in a car coming out that year. If your car is newer than your power plant, the car engine is probably more efficient. Also, if your power plant is a single stage gas turbine rather than dual, the car is probably still more efficient.

    But there is one important thing you are leaving out with EVs running on electric power – batteries. Even high tech lithium batteries are only about 40% efficient in charging.

    So whatever the difference is between the efficiency of the power plant and the efficiency of your car engine, that is multiplicative with the efficiency on your batteries. And that is a lot of inefficiency. Even if you are powered on a new turbine plant with a dual stage turbine you have to multiply .62 x .4 to compare to you’re old car which is maybe .4 itself. But .62 x .4 = .26 efficient compared to the ICE car’s .4. Batteries suck. This is a big part of why I don’t get how people expect efficiency gains using them.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Lars Porsena


    the 2 stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s now. That’s good. I find it curious though, that no one has tried to put a second stage heat-scavenging steam turbine on an ICE.
     
    Steam turbines are too bulky to put in road vehicles.  There have been some efforts to put organic vapor cycle engines in vehicles, but those have also been too costly/bulky.

    ICE’s are more efficient than single stage turbines, only the dual stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s. But since the 2nd stage is heat scavenging, why not put a 2nd stage turbine on an ICE?
     
    See above.

    you’re [sic] idea that the efficiency of the electric plant is certainly better than what the ICE in a car achieves is common but most likely completely wrong.
     
    How can I be wrong, when I'm quoting the manufacturer's claim of 62.22%?  A figure that has to be confirmed by each and every customer of said manufacturer?  Puh-LEESE!

    if your power plant is a single stage gas turbine rather than dual, the car is probably still more efficient.
     
    Doesn't matter.  If the car is burning petroleum-derived fuels and the PP is burning natural gas, the car is far more carbon-intensive.

    Even high tech lithium batteries are only about 40% efficient in charging.
     
    And there you are flat wrong.  Li-ion batteries have roughly 5% losses in charging/discharging.  Even lead-acid only has about 25% losses.

    Batteries suck. This is a big part of why I don’t get how people expect efficiency gains using them.
     
    Oh, batteries suck for a bunch of reasons (mostly cost and lifespan), but not efficiency.  They're plenty efficient.  And I've got considerable experience with efficiency gains from using batteries, as in well over 100 MPG through years of driving.  Elimination of idling losses is a big factor too.  If your engine is always loaded (not idling), it's far more efficient.  And if the engine runs on the Atkinson cycle, it gains even more efficiency.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  71. @Lars Porsena
    @Mr. Rational

    I'm a bit late with this reply but I will reply anyway.

    Yes, the 2 stage turbines are more efficient than ICE's now. That's good. I find it curious though, that no one has tried to put a second stage heat-scavenging steam turbine on an ICE. ICE's are more efficient than single stage turbines, only the dual stage turbines are more efficient than ICE's. But since the 2nd stage is heat scavenging, why not put a 2nd stage turbine on an ICE? Maybe they are running too cool to be efficient or maybe turbines is what turbine guys know and are comfortable with. Seems possible though.

    At any rate, as far as I can tell, you're idea that the efficiency of the electric plant is certainly better than what the ICE in a car achieves is common but most likely completely wrong. Assuming they are built in the same year, the ICEs in a power plant are about the same efficiency as the ICE in a car coming out that year. If your car is newer than your power plant, the car engine is probably more efficient. Also, if your power plant is a single stage gas turbine rather than dual, the car is probably still more efficient.

    But there is one important thing you are leaving out with EVs running on electric power - batteries. Even high tech lithium batteries are only about 40% efficient in charging.

    So whatever the difference is between the efficiency of the power plant and the efficiency of your car engine, that is multiplicative with the efficiency on your batteries. And that is a lot of inefficiency. Even if you are powered on a new turbine plant with a dual stage turbine you have to multiply .62 x .4 to compare to you're old car which is maybe .4 itself. But .62 x .4 = .26 efficient compared to the ICE car's .4. Batteries suck. This is a big part of why I don't get how people expect efficiency gains using them.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    the 2 stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s now. That’s good. I find it curious though, that no one has tried to put a second stage heat-scavenging steam turbine on an ICE.

    Steam turbines are too bulky to put in road vehicles.  There have been some efforts to put organic vapor cycle engines in vehicles, but those have also been too costly/bulky.

    ICE’s are more efficient than single stage turbines, only the dual stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s. But since the 2nd stage is heat scavenging, why not put a 2nd stage turbine on an ICE?

    See above.

    you’re [sic] idea that the efficiency of the electric plant is certainly better than what the ICE in a car achieves is common but most likely completely wrong.

    How can I be wrong, when I’m quoting the manufacturer’s claim of 62.22%?  A figure that has to be confirmed by each and every customer of said manufacturer?  Puh-LEESE!

    if your power plant is a single stage gas turbine rather than dual, the car is probably still more efficient.

    Doesn’t matter.  If the car is burning petroleum-derived fuels and the PP is burning natural gas, the car is far more carbon-intensive.

    Even high tech lithium batteries are only about 40% efficient in charging.

    And there you are flat wrong.  Li-ion batteries have roughly 5% losses in charging/discharging.  Even lead-acid only has about 25% losses.

    Batteries suck. This is a big part of why I don’t get how people expect efficiency gains using them.

    Oh, batteries suck for a bunch of reasons (mostly cost and lifespan), but not efficiency.  They’re plenty efficient.  And I’ve got considerable experience with efficiency gains from using batteries, as in well over 100 MPG through years of driving.  Elimination of idling losses is a big factor too.  If your engine is always loaded (not idling), it’s far more efficient.  And if the engine runs on the Atkinson cycle, it gains even more efficiency.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mr. Rational


    And there you are flat wrong. Li-ion batteries have roughly 5% losses in charging/discharging. Even lead-acid only has about 25% losses.
     
    Your technical debate with @Lars Porsena has been the most informative thing I have read this week. I appreciate it.
  72. @Mr. Rational
    @Lars Porsena


    the 2 stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s now. That’s good. I find it curious though, that no one has tried to put a second stage heat-scavenging steam turbine on an ICE.
     
    Steam turbines are too bulky to put in road vehicles.  There have been some efforts to put organic vapor cycle engines in vehicles, but those have also been too costly/bulky.

    ICE’s are more efficient than single stage turbines, only the dual stage turbines are more efficient than ICE’s. But since the 2nd stage is heat scavenging, why not put a 2nd stage turbine on an ICE?
     
    See above.

    you’re [sic] idea that the efficiency of the electric plant is certainly better than what the ICE in a car achieves is common but most likely completely wrong.
     
    How can I be wrong, when I'm quoting the manufacturer's claim of 62.22%?  A figure that has to be confirmed by each and every customer of said manufacturer?  Puh-LEESE!

    if your power plant is a single stage gas turbine rather than dual, the car is probably still more efficient.
     
    Doesn't matter.  If the car is burning petroleum-derived fuels and the PP is burning natural gas, the car is far more carbon-intensive.

    Even high tech lithium batteries are only about 40% efficient in charging.
     
    And there you are flat wrong.  Li-ion batteries have roughly 5% losses in charging/discharging.  Even lead-acid only has about 25% losses.

    Batteries suck. This is a big part of why I don’t get how people expect efficiency gains using them.
     
    Oh, batteries suck for a bunch of reasons (mostly cost and lifespan), but not efficiency.  They're plenty efficient.  And I've got considerable experience with efficiency gains from using batteries, as in well over 100 MPG through years of driving.  Elimination of idling losses is a big factor too.  If your engine is always loaded (not idling), it's far more efficient.  And if the engine runs on the Atkinson cycle, it gains even more efficiency.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    And there you are flat wrong. Li-ion batteries have roughly 5% losses in charging/discharging. Even lead-acid only has about 25% losses.

    Your technical debate with has been the most informative thing I have read this week. I appreciate it.

    • Thanks: Mr. Rational

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS