Forum Post: REAL Energy Independence for the USA for 1000+ Years - US VS China and China is winning :(
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 2, 2012, 2:08 p.m. EST by bill1102inf2
(357)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The new space race is on... and CHINA is winning. They are building at least 12 LFTR plants as you read this.
The only way to real energy independence for the USA is via THORIUM. 100% green, 100% safe, 100% proven, 100% natural occuring fuel. There are MILLIONS of lbs of thorium from burning coal scattered all over the USA, plus natural thorium deposits.
Carbon neutral diesel and gasoline can readily be made from this.
100% Energy Independence is possible now.
http://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4 <---Thorium in 5 minutes video.(most of what you need to know)
We will NEVER run out. 1000% more energy in thorium than ANY other fuel that is common.
This will END wars.
End our reliance on using our enemies oil.
End funding the terrorist states of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, etc.
Inexpensive electricity for ALL.
Vehicles alone in the USA release 1.7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere each year—mostly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2). This technology will mean ALL 1.7 BILLION METRIC TONS will be removed from being released.
[Deleted]
Thank you for your reply, I can not even see this post on here anymore, did you find it in the regular FORUM list?
LENR doesn't produce plutonium.
It will also "use up" the waste from old style reactors.
It takes only a small amount of uranium to start it's process.
Also check out ECAT. com, for another promising process.
Carbon neutral??? We are energy and combustion, actually blast furnaces that utilize hydrogen fro water, and ewhat is final product? CO2.
Carbon based life produces carbon. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
Carbon is life, and trees need CO2 it to survive. Let the plants do the work they can, (I think deforestation is a major issue contributing to increase) less vegetation replaced by parking lots, pave roads, buildings.
If you really want carbon neutrality, hold your breath ! Or plant some trees! Do what you can
its carbon neutral when you take CO2 from the air or other source and use it to create synth-fuel, once used releases the CO2 back to the air = carbon neutral as opposed to taking captured co2 from fossil fuels and releasing it into the air.
OK , thx for clearing up, there are "other interpretations" that have been used on here
anytime, this is real, available technology right now (invented in the 30's/40's). This would ELIMINATE 100% of CO2 pollution for every auto that used the synth fuel.
It can also be combined with gasification of all carbonous materials, including rocks and even metals, to create even more synthetic gas and heat, to fire or power turbines, or the gas to be burnt in other ways.
30,000 degrees will do the trick and if the reactor doesn't fire up that hot, use plasma beam to start the external gasification process.
I ran a kickstart maytag washing machine motor off syn gas over 20 years ago and have done other larger engines (including motorcycles) since then. It burns very clean as is the process.
It still amazes me that Obama would tout electric hybrid cars knowing full well many much more viable means exist that do not require further anal reaming by the Communist Chinese, who indeed have the rear earth metals to make the best storage batteries known to exist at this point in time.
btw.... have you ever played with etracting hydrogen from "doped water" using radiowaves? Much more efficient (90% + more) than electrolysis and no problems with constant electrode decay and high energy consumption to produce the results.
The process was discovered by a research scientist working on cancer cures.
I know, or knew when they were alive, a handful of engineers that worked on the Manhattan project. I even owned a Dauphine electric conversion, done by one of original manhattan guys, way back when, which was more efficient and faster than the factory Killowatt cars.
Isn't thorium a radioactive element? How would it use CO2 in the atmosphere to make a usable fuel?
Yes it is. It would be the fuel in a LFTR Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (a nuclear reactor). CO2 is easily captured all it takes is electricity, which Thorium produces an abundance of. Additionally, the primary leftover product at coal plants is.... you guessed it - Thorium. We have been stockpiling the stuff for 80 years!
Does it have any advantage over traditional uranium reactors?
Oh yes, one , it does not make Uranium Waste OR bomb-material, instead its by products have very short half lifes AND 2 of them are used in medicine.
It is 100% safe, it can not melt down, there is no 'High Pressure Containment Vessel', it literally can not go critical, it can not Fukishima, it can not Chernobyl or THree mile island.
We have literally 1000 YEARS worth of Thorium using it to replace 100% of ALL ENERGY produced in the USA. (ALL COAL/NatGas/Nuclear power plants PLUS ALL oil/gasoline/diesel use)
Theres more, watch the video/links.
Thorium is a radioactive element, three times more abundant than uranium, but there's no such thing as "carbon neutral" diesel and gasoline (combustion always yields CO2 ... chemistry 101).
While combustion yields CO2 if you captured it its a net=0 CO2 increase/decrease
But what do you do with it once you capture it? Moreover, if you're talking about capture and storage, then what problem have you solved with Thorium? Thorium is a radioactive element, it cannot be used to manufacturer liquid fuel (at least not directly). It could be used in place of uranium for nuclear power ... but there's no reason to do that.
thats not what i was talking about. I was talking about making synthetic fuel from electricity+CO2. The electricity from the LFTR and the CO2 from the air or previously 'captured co2'. It DOES NOT MATTER that capturing co2 uses energy as its super abundant with a LFTR. Furthermore, thorium can be used in a liquid fuel, it has already been done decades ago and worked fine.
Any liquid transportation fuel (unless we're talking hydrogen fuel cells) requires both carbon and hydrogen (e.g. petroleum is C8H18, methane is CH4, etc.). I think maybe what you're talking about is a process called coelectrolysis (using something like oxide fuel cells, basically running in reverse). You'd get the hydrogen from water, and carbon from a variety of sources (ideally from an industrial source that emits CO2, easier than capturing it from the atmosphere, although the latter is theoretically possible). Interesting stuff, but if you're talking about using Thorium, then you're talking about a nuclear reactor to generate the electricity.
There is another alternative. Pebble bed nuclear reactors cannot meltdown, and they produce hydrogen as a byproduct (they're able to operate at extremely high temperatures because they use helium, rather than water, as a coolant). Here's a decent article on this:
http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html
I assume you're referring to liquid fluoride thorium reactors (which are interesting, but again, we're talking about a nuclear reactor). Certainly many advantages to using Thorium in this way (for one thing the reactor cannot explode, always a plus, and much less waste is produced). However, pebble reactors are probably safer (and better understood).
thx for the link, google up LFTR's and or watch the link in the OP. A LFTR was built in the 60's/70's and ran fine, Germany invented the technology, they also invented the ability to create synth fuels. There are companies working on LFTR's. And... of course China is already building them, alot of them......
Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't watch the OP video right off the bat (and yeah .... LFTR's are an awesome idea). The only bone of contention I have with the video is the idea of converting hydrogen from water and carbon from the atmosphere into liquid fuels. It is "theoretically" possible, but it will take a lot of work and research before it becomes economically feasible (but LFTR's are a different story, we could start building them now). I think for liquid transportation fuels, if we wanna talk about very futuristic ideas, hydrogen fuel cells are by far the cleanest alternative (they only emit H2O).
cheap electricity for all
and it appears that no one cares
Sell it to the Japs, 'cause I ain't buying it.
pfft, what are you not buying? you dont believe in physics? Go jump off a roof
Wow, I jump off a roof and I get hurt. You sell thorium and down goes a continent. Go Dick Cheney yourself, you ignorant, uneducated, God fearing Troll.
lmao, "You sell thorium and down goes a continent" - wtf are you talking about? Thorium is a by product of Coal burning, we have millions of TONS of the stuff, plus we have mines capable of mining millions of tons of it = cheap energy for 1000+ years and 100% energy independence.
I'm typing about the simple minds that love the steam engine so much they are willing to put holes everywhere to blow smoke up our asses.
Not to worry though, you keep plugging.
another fucking retarded posting. YOU keep buying pollution causing electricity at an ever higher rate with higher taxes and the rest of the country can buy cheap, green, safe, electricity.
post another
We need more global warming so the Replicans will finally have to admit I'm right. Please keep this shit on the down low. It's why Al Gore, my hero and I sleep next to an anatomically correct inflatable version of him every night, never suggested we try this.
Feel me, my left wing government teat suckers?
GO DEMOTARDS!
its been kept on the dl for far too long.
You don't get it you repelican! What is important is THAT I AM FUCKING RIGHT! I want a ZenDog monument in DC and I don't care what color the smeg pile is!
at least you have learned how to spell
Hahahahaha! For all the hateful shit you talk I about spit all over my lovely huge touch screen monitor when I read you pissing and snitching to the mods about involving the police over a less hateful private message. Pussy.
that's right i'm a pussy
my pic
> >
That's right.
I'm a pussy
We've already been through this, yes you are and obviously inbred too, and yep.... a crybaby snitch as well.
You have permission to soak your head in the unflushed main toilet in the diarrhea ward of the nearest opium rehab facility to you. If your dial up and snow still has you shut in, just stab yourself in the eye with a pick axe.
you got my pic fuker
stop running your mouth
and do what you do
This looks like a nice place to post another bash on the 1%. Thats right. Because of you, another bash on the 1% will become searchable worldwide.
ZenDog ain't no pussy. In fact, hes about as determined as they come. That makes him a warrior in my book.
Now for that bash on the rich.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.
Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.
One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.