new scientific discoveries

[Gfted1]

U.S. Navy test fires 32 megajoule rail gun.

[Humodour]

I know Krezack has posted about Thorium before, and it's not a new discovery, but seems especially relevant in light of the nuclear situation: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/articl...ur-energy-needs

 

Haha, yeah, I was just talking about this the other day on Facebook. Thorium is the perfect nuclear fuel source. Ironically, the reason the world will probably eventually adopt it (and replace uranium with it) is because Australia won't sell uranium to India (don't ask). Which means India needs some other way to make up for their huge and growing energy needs. And, surprise, India holds 25% of the world's Thorium (and Australia another 25%) - so it makes sense for them to invest in the initial R&D to build thorium reactors where it would not be economically feasible for any other country to do so.

 

But once India has got initial R&D out of the way, once they've got clean, efficient thorium reactors, well, they'd be fools not to sell that technology to the rest of the world.

 

Thorium also produces more energy per gram than uranium from memory, and it is 5 times more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium.

 

Perhaps the key point, though, is that, due to the science of it, thorium reactors will never undergo nuclear meltdown even if all the **** hits the fan.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

Call me an old hippy, but I was rather looking forward to the point where we'd have to burn our old nukes just to stay warm.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It probably makes a ton of sense for the US to do the initial investment, considering the costs of fuel, costs of wars to keep the fuel going, costs of environmental compliance etc, the initial investment would be a drop in the bucket. That is assuming this isn't too good to be true of course.

[Gfted1]

Artificial Leaf Turns Water into Energy for Cheap

[Wrath of Dagon]

That might make it easier to produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars, I wonder if it would be practical to have a home installation and fuel your car from there.

 

Edit: Of course, there's also this: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/dilbert#id=/c...umedia/20112903

Edited March 29, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[pmp10]

But once India has got initial R&D out of the way, once they've got clean, efficient thorium reactors, well, they'd be fools not to sell that technology to the rest of the world.

That's assuming it will actually be desirable.

Right now it seems unlikely you could run thorium reactors without messing with uranium.

Considering the development cycles we might have access to fusion by the time thorium becomes an acceptable solution.

And fusion is always 30 years into the future.

[Humodour]

But once India has got initial R&D out of the way, once they've got clean, efficient thorium reactors, well, they'd be fools not to sell that technology to the rest of the world.

That's assuming it will actually be desirable.

Right now it seems unlikely you could run thorium reactors without messing with uranium.

Considering the development cycles we might have access to fusion by the time thorium becomes an acceptable solution.

And fusion is always 30 years into the future.

 

That's a weird post... fusion is promising but it's nothing like thorium. It's waaaaay off in the super alpha prototype stage. a bunch of commercial thorium reactors will be coming online around the world in the next 1 to 5 years.

 

Yes, you need to convert thorium to uranium first to use it (which is actually one of the benefits - it is the reason nuclear meltdown is impossible IIRC), but that's not terribly relevant because that has already been factored into this discussion - it's still a lot safer and cleaner in every single way even considering this aspect.

 

1) Thorium is far less radioactive than uranium

2) Thorium produces far less nuclear waste than uranium

3) The waste it does produce has a shorter half-life

4) Thorium reactors cannot undergo meltdown

5) It's extremely difficult to weaponise thorium

 

Thorium is not some experimental thing. It is a proven nuclear fuel. And apparently 1 tonne of thorium produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium. Wow.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thori..._a_nuclear_fuel

[pmp10]

AFAIK not every fact you mention is strictly true but that is besides the point.

What's really important to keep your enthusiasm in check.

Just as people promising miraculous fuel production from sun/water/air there are people declaring fusion will be viable within a decade or that thorium will solve all nuclear energy problems within a fortnight.

There is no real reason to believe one group over the other.

Every potential solution gets it's medial minute every once in a while.

[Humodour]

Uhhh. I take it you've been paying no attention to modern photovoltaics, then.

 

The fact is, from a scientific and technological perspective, we KNOW just how powerful thorium and photovoltaics can be. We do not know anything of the sort about fusion.

 

Photovoltaics are close to parity with oil now, and exactly when they become cheaper than oil depends largely on two factors: 1) if oil becomes more expensive, or 2) if breakthroughs in materials science continue occurring at their current pace. If at least one of these things occurs (and it is in fact likely that both of them will), solar energy will be more economically viable than fossil fuels within 10 years.

 

As for thorium - feel free to point out which facts are incorrect. It's very much part of the point.

 

My enthusiasm for thorium is perfectly in check with its practical, proven, and projected potential. There's no point being modest about the fact that it really is a far superior alternative to uranium. And we already know that uranium is a largely superior alternative to fossil fuels. It should not be difficult to join the dots here.

[pmp10]

I fear we have been discussing different things all along.

I don't mean that thorium has no potential behind it - it dose.

But from the economical PoV it may not be enough to make it the more attractive solution.

[Walsingham]

What's startling to me is that I only heard of throium about a fortnight ago. WTF, New Scientist?

[Rosbjerg]

Maybe someone here can help me out with this..

 

I overheard a rather interesting discussion today in a cafe between what appeared to be an astrophysicists and a friend who was probably an engineer of some sort - they were discussing the theory of the Big Bang.

 

The discussion ended in a stalemate, but some interesting points were raised.

 

2 arguments that were not rebutted:

 

The "Pound Rebka eksperiment" used to prove Einsteins theory of relativity overlooked an important issue - radio signals from geostationary satellites should experience a "blue shift". But the time delay from the satellites are constant.

 

2 galaxies should not be able to collide if all motion originated from a common source (big bang)

 

 

Is this bull?

[Tale]

Time difference between ground and the satellites isn't constant. This is a solved problem experienced by GPS satellites. Time dilation effects have to be accounted for.

[Walsingham]

Maybe someone here can help me out with this..

 

I overheard a rather interesting discussion today in a cafe between what appeared to be an astrophysicists and a friend who was probably an engineer of some sort - they were discussing the theory of the Big Bang.

 

The discussion ended in a stalemate, but some interesting points were raised.

 

2 arguments that were not rebutted:

 

The "Pound Rebka eksperiment" used to prove Einsteins theory of relativity overlooked an important issue - radio signals from geostationary satellites should experience a "blue shift". But the time delay from the satellites are constant.

 

2 galaxies should not be able to collide if all motion originated from a common source (big bang)

 

 

Is this bull?

 

I'm no physicist but the last makes no sense whatsoever. It presumes that the only source of motion is the big bang. Whereas I should think that very large galaxies and black holes would have enough oomph to get relatively smaller objects - ie other small galaxies - to move together by swinging around them. Rather like the two balls on one of those clacker things.

 

Does that make sense?

[Rosbjerg]

Does that make sense?

 

It does, but I thought it was an interesting question - mostly in regards to when large galaxies collide (which they do).. But I guess their path could've been diverted "early" by a blackhole or something heavy.

 

Time difference between ground and the satellites isn't constant. This is a solved problem experienced by GPS satellites. Time dilation effects have to be accounted for.

 

Well, that's settled .. I guess he wasn't a very good engineer!

 

Thanks guys.

[Humodour]

Well, that's settled .. I guess he wasn't a very good engineer!

 

Oh, I'm sure he was a GREAT engineer! But it is my experience that engineers are excellent at doings things and rather horrible at understanding why they're doing them.

 

My sources: half a dozen friends who have done or are doing their honours in engineering + a bit of time spent hanging around their labs and watching them while they work.

[Walsingham]

One interesting thing a friend of mine told me is about some research which suggests that experts are actually easier to confuse about the detail of issues related to their discipline. They get the correct info, but if you ask them WHY something is correct they muddle it up with other data. Wrong designer/wrong fuel/wrong calibre etc. This made sense to me if one believes experts 'chunk' information.

 

Anyway, that could be why your friend got confused.

[Tale]

I always liked the idea that the more of an expert someone is in one field, the more of an expert they believe themselves to be in all other fields.

[Gorth]

I fear we have been discussing different things all along.

I don't mean that thorium has no potential behind it - it dose.

But from the economical PoV it may not be enough to make it the more attractive solution.

Plus, you would expect heavy resistance/obstacles from powerful lobbies, who have a vested interest in not finding cheap alternatives to current energy sources.

[Humodour]

I fear we have been discussing different things all along.

I don't mean that thorium has no potential behind it - it dose.

But from the economical PoV it may not be enough to make it the more attractive solution.

Plus, you would expect heavy resistance/obstacles from powerful lobbies, who have a vested interest in not finding cheap alternatives to current energy sources.

 

I always hear this line about various technologies, but it always seems to turn out to be far more the musings of ord'n'ry citizens than actual market fact.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

Scientists grow retina from stem cells.

 

I have to say that ever since I understood what stem cell research was I have loved it more than cricket on the radio. And that's saying something.

[pmp10]

Scientists grow retina from stem cells.

Now that is intresting as apparently no base was given to the cells before they started forming the eye.

Let's just hope that it won't end up like the "regrowing teeth with stem cells" idea.

[Humodour]

Scientists grow retina from stem cells.

 

I have to say that ever since I understood what stem cell research was I have loved it more than cricket on the radio. And that's saying something.

 

Yeah, was discussing this with a mate on a run today.

 

Well, replacing unhealthy eyes with lab-grown ones is still a while off, so until then we can use the Australian bionic eye implant which scientists here are currently performing safety testing on in preparation for commercial launch in 1 or 2 years (i.e. use in the blind).

 

http://www.itwire.com/science-news/biology...oser-to-reality

[Walsingham]

Has there been anything more on that fellah who just had stems injected into his weak heart and they just incorprated and regrew it?