What happens next?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think this is, by far, one of the dumbest things you've said, even considering that you tried to slide it under the cover a misused sarcasm tag.

Then rather than commenting on the failings of others, admit your own.

I don't know a single Christian who considers him/herself sinless. (I'm sure they are out there, but I have never encountered one)

I will wager that many of you deem yourselves saved regardless.

[Cow Poke]

Then rather than commenting on the failings of others, admit your own.

I'm a crusty old fart that doesn't pretend to be righteous, and am full of fauts.

I will wager that many of you deem yourselves saved regardless.

Fortunately, I will be pronounced righteous, not by my own deeds, but by the Righteousness of Christ.

[tabibito]

I'm a crusty old fart that doesn't pretend to be righteous, and am full of fauts.

And therefore need to put in no effort at self purification?

Fortunately, I will be pronounced righteous, not by my own deeds, but by the Righteousness of Christ.

A statement that must be considered unlikely.

Jude 1:24

[Cow Poke]

And therefore need to put in no effort at self purification?

Baby steps, my friend. Baby steps.

A statement that must be considered unlikely.

Jude 1:24

Well, I'm one of His problem children. Pray for me.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm a crusty old fart that doesn't pretend to be righteous, and am full of fauts.



Fortunately, I will be pronounced righteous, not by my own deeds, but by the Righteousness of Christ.

To quote Dave Allen "May your God go with you."

[Sparko]

But I was telling CP my truth. Christians who have tangled up politics with their faith certainly are a strange people.

CP seems to think that this forum is all for Conservative Christians. I wonder about Liberal Christians or Conservative Atheists.

But obviously an Independent Deist could be disbarred in his world.

We have had liberal Christians on staff, and we have no problem with liberal or conservative atheists (we get along fine with CivilDiscourse for example). In fact we have no problem with you, a liberal atheist. Didn't we all get along in your scooter thread?

Tweb would not even exist without different sides and religions discussing thing together. That's it's purpose.

But I was referring to this part:

Ha ha!
Poor Cow-Poke!

You can't seem to take your own advice:

It really isn't a bright idea to mock anybody

Perhaps if you stopped doing it, and were more respectful, then others would be the same with you. But don't tell others to stop being mocking and then turn around and do it yourself a few posts later. You lose all credibility.

[Sparko]

Complaint: An expression of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.

If you are going to quote someone quote them accurately do not paraphrase what they wrote.



Note the difference. That is a question. It is not a "complaint".



That is a statement that contains an observation It is not a "complaint"

Once again my observation that you really need a dictionary is shown to be accurate

there you go again HA. Arguing definitions. No wonder nobody but eider seems to even pay attention to your whining and trolling any longer.

I once again wonder if you are autistic. You seem to have an inability to be flexible on concepts and language. Or perhaps as CD says, you merely use being literally wooden regarding language as a method of trolling.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

there you go again HA. Arguing definitions. No wonder nobody but eider seems to even pay attention to your whining and trolling any longer.

I once again wonder if you are autistic. You seem to have an inability to be flexible on concepts and language. Or perhaps as CD says, you merely use being literally wooden regarding language as a method of trolling.

I repeat my advice. Get a dictionary and use it.

[Cow Poke]

I repeat my advice. Get a dictionary and use it.

It's kinda like Americans who take Castilian Spanish lessons to be able to communicate with our friends to the South who do not speak it.
In order to communicate with persons from other regions of the world, it's very helpful to learn how they use words, idioms, phrases, sentence structure....

We don't live by the dictionary in every day language.

When somebody says "I'm riding shotgun", do you imagine an actual physical shotgun in their hands?

[Sparko]

Yes and no and feel free to double-check with our other resident source on nuclear power if you don't trust me to give you the straight skinny.

Some of this I had to google, like current prices:

1. Reactor construction cost is between $5k and $8k per kw. Wind turbines come in at $1k to $2k per kw. That's assuming you were thinking about the economic efficiency for the build out. Solar power costs are comparable to wind power. So as far as initial investment, nuclear plants are a distant third.
2. Nuclear plants aren't clean. Starting with the mine tailings and ending with fuel rod disposal, the whole process is dirty and dangerous. Not as dangerous as Hanoi Jane would have it, but dangerous.
3. Fusion power would be better.
4. You can't burn nuclear waste in a reactor.
5. All nuclear plants produce radioactive waste products.

So you're batting one for five on that one.

I can't even hazard a guess where you got most of that, but some of it looks kinda sorta like it has some relation to actual facts.

It's possible to reprocess standard spent uranium hexafluoride fuel rods to separate out the plutonium. That's what's used for nuclear bombs. And it's also possible to turn that plutonium into more fuel rods to power what's called a breeder reactor, as in: breeds its own fuel. That's my best guess at what you muddled and misremembered and well, kinda pulled out your patoot.

Plutonium is just one of the radioactive byproducts of a uranium-based power plant, and all three isotopes of uranium are radioactive. There's still a whole lot of radioactive fission products after that, bouncing down the periodic table heading toward the sweet spot where fission and fusion both stop producing energy — one going up, one coming down.

binding energy per nucleon.jpg

If you're thinking straight, you might be wondering if that means there are radioactive waste products from fusion, too. Yeah but, not even close to the same scale, because hydrogen-hydrogen fusion pretty much stops at helium. Only the heaviest and hence most rare radioactive helium isotopes travel further up the table to lithium, but when they do, they do it really fast. Half-lives are less than a second. They produce lithium by beta decay where a neutron gets replaced with a proton.

Lithium has radioactive isotopes as well, but at that point the decay chain has attenuated far enough to ignore any resulting irradiation.

And if it'll make you feel better, the librarian is wrong about the ultimate need to use less power, too. I did a calculation a few years back for a TWeb thread and it came out that with contemporary solar panels, it'd take a solar farm about 10 mi on a side to power the entire US. CSP plants are even more efficient per square mi. We've got a whole lot of parcels that size in the desert southwest. The only real barrier is transmission and storage, at which point we'd be talking about powering the species using solar farms in Saudi Arabia and the Sahara.

That's before we talk about Pournelle's ideas for putting solar farms in orbit, or haul out Freeman Dyson to tell us how it should really be done.

There's no theoretical reason to think we won't be able to expand energy expenditure indefinitely, or at least for many generations to come.

I was referring to the efficiency of how much potential energy is converted to electricity. Solar is about 20% efficient. Breeder reactors can theoretically use almost all of the energy from its fuel.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Breeder reactors could, in principle, extract almost all of the energy contained in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by a factor of 100 compared to widely used once-through light water reactors, which extract less than 1% of the energy in the actinide metal (uranium or thorium) mined from the earth.^[3] The high fuel-efficiency of breeder reactors could greatly reduce concerns about fuel supply, energy used in mining, and storage of radioactive waste. With seawater uranium extraction (currently too expensive to be economical), there is enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy the world's energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983's total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy.^[4][5] In addition to seawater the average crustal granite rocks contain significant quantities of uranium and thorium that with breeder reactors can supply abundant energy for the remaining lifespan of the sun on the main sequence of stellar evolution

© Copyright Original Source

And as far as burning nuclear waste yes, I was referring to breeder reactors, I linked to them earlier in the thread.


One such is the CANDU

Even better than LWRs, CANDU can utilize a mix of uranium and plutonium oxides (MOX fuel), the plutonium either from dismantled nuclear weapons or reprocessed reactor fuel. The mix of isotopes in reprocessed plutonium is not attractive for weapons, but can be used as fuel (instead of being simply nuclear waste), while consuming weapons-grade plutonium eliminates a proliferation hazard. If the aim is explicitly to utilize plutonium or other actinides from spent fuel, then special inert-matrix fuels are proposed to do this more efficiently than MOX. Since they contain no uranium, these fuels do not breed any extra plutonium.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction

Nuclear waste became a greater concern by the 1990s. Breeding fuel cycles attracted renewed interest because of their potential to reduce actinide wastes, particularly various isotopes of plutonium and the minor actinides (neptunium, americium, curium, etc.).^[8] Since breeder reactors on a closed fuel cycle would use nearly all of the isotopes of these actinides fed into them as fuel, their fuel requirements would be reduced by a factor of about 100. The volume of waste they generate would be reduced by a factor of about 100 as well. While there is a huge reduction in the volume of waste from a breeder reactor, the activity of the waste is about the same as that produced by a light-water reactor.^[41]

In addition, the waste from a breeder reactor has a different decay behavior, because it is made up of different materials. Breeder reactor waste is mostly fission products, while light-water reactor waste is mostly un-used uranium isotopes and a large quantity of transuranics. After spent nuclear fuel has been removed from a light-water reactor for longer than 100,000 years, the transuranics would be the main source of radioactivity. Eliminating them would eliminate much of the long-term radioactivity from the spent fuel.^[9]

In principle, breeder fuel cycles can recycle and consume all actinides,^[4] leaving only fission products. As the graphic in this section indicates, fission products have a peculiar "gap" in their aggregate half-lives, such that no fission products have a half-life between 91 years and two hundred thousand years. As a result of this physical oddity, after several hundred years in storage, the activity of the radioactive waste from a Fast Breeder Reactor would quickly drop to the low level of the long-lived fission products. However, to obtain this benefit requires the highly efficient separation of transuranics from spent fuel. If the fuel reprocessing methods used leave a large fraction of the transuranics in the final waste stream, this advantage would be greatly reduced.^[3]

© Copyright Original Source

So there are still improvements to be made but nuclear power is a better and more efficient energy source than solar or wind. Heck just compare the footprint needed for a nuclear power plant and what the equivalent land needed for a solar farm creating the same amount of electricity. Solar is great as a supplement but not as a very efficient primary power source for a city.

PS I won't be holding my breath waiting for HA to tell you:

A rather interesting response.

The topic is highly complex and neither of us is re competent to make pronouncements on the the technicalities of these reactors. So please stop posturing and affecting some detailed understanding.

[Sparko]

Also this is an interesting info-video from the WEF regarding a compact molten lead reactor

https://www.weforum.org/videos/newcl...or-waste-fuel/

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's kinda like Americans who take Castilian Spanish lessons to be able to communicate with our friends to the South who do not speak it.
In order to communicate with persons from other regions of the world, it's very helpful to learn how they use words, idioms, phrases, sentence structure....

We don't live by the dictionary in every day language.

When somebody says "I'm riding shotgun", do you imagine an actual physical shotgun in their hands?

I understand many English sayings/idioms including your example as a modern reference to sitting beside the driver of a car but which harks back to the individual who sat, with a firearm, next to the driver of a stagecoach and who would use that gun in the event of an attack.

However, the word "complaint" is neither a saying nor an idiom.

I therefore made no complaint when I asked the question:

Now you are a nuclear physicist?

Neither was a a direct question that contained an observation a complaint.

The topic is highly complex and neither of us is re competent to make pronouncements on the the technicalities of these reactors. So please stop posturing and affecting some detailed understanding.

[CivilDiscourse]

Now you are a nuclear physicist?

Subtext (and context given past conversations with H_A): "You are not qualified to talk on this. I want to use the fallacy of authority to dismiss your points without discussing them."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's technically a mistake because the Sabbath is technically the Jewish holy day, which runs from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. But to be fair, it's a mistake most Christians would make, too, because most Christians think of it as just another word for holy day.

Most Christians don't really know much about their own religion, and ironically enough, even less about most Christians.

I was thinking of groups such as the Free Presbyterians [aka the wee frees] in Scotland!

Or the 2016 remake of Whisky Galore where, as the islanders are about to row out to the doomed freighter SS Cabinet Minister with its precious cargo of whisky, James Cosmo as the pastor shouts just as the clock strikes midnight "Tis the Sabbath"!

[Cow Poke]

I understand many English sayings/idioms including your example as a modern reference to sitting beside the driver of a car but which harks back to the individual who sat, with a firearm, next to the driver of a stagecoach and who would use that gun in the event of an attack.

I suspect you had to look that one up.

However, the word "complaint" is neither a saying nor an idiom.

Wasn't referring to that.