< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 228 OF 228 ·
|Aug-14-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: The best type of nuclear reactor would be
1. Has a passive negative feedback mechanism inherent in its physics, so that one does not heed human volition to shut them down when they begin to overheat.
2. Can use thorium. Uranium is still widely available but note that what present nuclear plants mostly use is the rarer isotope, U-235. This is only 0.7% of natural uranium. It would be like burning gold for fuel. So barring the use of thorium, if a nuclear plant has to use uranium, it should be able to use U-238, the more common isotope. Thorium by contrast is approximately as common as lead in the Earth's crust.
Note that MSR and PBR reactors have passive negative security mechanisms and can burn thorium.
If nuclear plants can use thorium in a safe manner, that would mean virtually unlimited energy for the world for thousands of years. Instead of burning gold, it would be like burning lead in ridiculously small amounts to produce energy cheaper than coal.
|Aug-17-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> I read http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08... above.|
I am familiar with nearly all the ideas in the article. They are some of the specific mechanisms by which what the local activists way back in college called 'imperialism' is implemented, although the more properly correct term for it would be neo-colonialism. Everything in that article (fiat money and the petrodollar and its inception and possible downfall, IMF-WB, the proxy wars) falls under the topic of neo-colonialism. A powerful polity (and its controllers) exerting control via indirect means.
Some time ago, control of peripheral areas was exerted directly via conquest and the integration of the local people, culture, resources under a state apparatus. It was called colonialism then.
The article is way incomplete though. I understand that the author is focusing on the status of the US (petro)dollar as the world's essential international currency is being used to exert indirect political control over areas outside the USA. This aspect of neo-colonialism occurred mainly after WW2, when the countries bankrupted by the war were maneuvered by the USA to adopt the dollar as the world's main international currency. In the 1970s, two more important events occurred. One, President Nixon unbound the dollar from gold. Instead of a gold standard, the world turned to fiat money. Two, the main Arab oil producing countries were persuaded by the US to adopt the dollar as the currency for oil trading. This has allowed the US Federal Reserve to overprint the dollar without a runaway inflation.
These are all old news. What surprises me is the establishment of BRICS. It's clear to me that it's an attack on one of the main mechanisms by which the US is exerting control on the rest of the world. I suspect that those in power in the US never expected BRICS either.
Russia has stopped using the old Marxist-associated terms that the Soviet Union used. It is officially not a Marxist state anymore. So Putin and Russian officials use euphemistic terms like unipolar vs multipolar world. In his KGB days, I suspect he would just say 'I intend to take away one of the foundations of US imperialism, the petrodollar'.
My main critique of the above paradigm is that it entirely leaves out internal colonialism. Unlike imperialism, it is a direct form of colonialism by which a nation-state's capital center continues to control and exploit its peripheries, via the state apparatus. The capitals of the third world own and exploit a fourth world, the world of captive peoples.
The Kurds for instance would be a captive people. In the paradigm that the present Russian (and Chinese) leaders are using, in order to expose and weaken modern international neo-colonialism, where do the Kurds fit in? Articles such as the above don't entirely know how to treat the Kurds. They don't fit in the paradigm.
After having said all of the above, I may have to request you to delete this post of mine in a few days. CG.com isn't the proper place to talk about it.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
I'm not sure that articles like that can really cover all the ground in dealing with the situations under discussion. Having said that, I agree it is something of an omission to not discuss the colonial legacy, especially in its modern form of internal colonialism.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <heuristic>
Ohio and I both agree the other is bereft of his senses. He believes in young Earth creationism vs my acceptance of the evolutionary basis for biodiversity.
I believe US foreign policy is the biggest (but not the only!) single threat to world peace and well being whereas he does not.
In short he's a religious fundamentalist and a right winger, while I'm an atheist and from the secular far left (-9, -9 on the political compass).
Despite that, we agree chess is the greatest game on Earth and have cordially worked together on a number of interesting projects, including the original World Challenge back in '06 and ongoing production of useful bios for chess players.
So don't be shy to come back with your opinion, humble or otherwise, on the subject you nominated. I promise a reasoned discussion, complete with reasoning and supporting sources if necessary.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Nifty photo of a cucumber glowing in the dark: http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/08/...
|Aug-18-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <OhioChessFan> Being against US foreign policy is not equivalent to being against ordinary Americans.|
Personally, I do not like <some> aspects of US foreign policy, but that does not mean I am against ordinary Americans or American culture. In addition, I also like <other> aspects of US foreign policy.
<twinlark: I believe US foreign policy is the biggest (but not the only!) single threat to world peace and well being>
US like any geopolitically powerful polity in history likes to exert control over areas outside its official territory. During the cold war, Russia and China opposed this, calling it 'imperialism'. It must be noted that Russia and China for their part also wanted to exert control over outside territory. US saw it as spreading 'communism' and opposed it. The terms one uses and any bias seem dependent on the vantage point where one is viewing the world.
The post cold war polities now use different terms, phrases, maybe even ideologies. Nevertheless it's clear that the political world game goes on.
There is one fundamental fact that makes the world game post WW2 different and more frightful. Nukes. Both US and Russia have the capacity to reduce all the world's major population centers to radioactive ash.
Not talking about right or wrong yet, but another consistent behavior of a major geopolitical power is that it does not tolerate a hostile force on its border. This is true for the US, which certainly would not tolerate a hostile force on its Mexican border. What's very worrisome is that some US factions have apparently forgotten that the same applies to Russia and China. The US actions in Ukraine, instigating a change in government and then encouraging that government to engage in actions hostile to Russia right on its border AFAIK has never occurred during the cold war. Even if one thinks it's morally right for the US to commit to such a foreign policy, if one is mindful, one should be able to immediately see the danger of such a policy triggering a nuclear war.
|Aug-18-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <During the cold war, Russia and China opposed this, calling it 'imperialism'. >|
Yeah, and they called the Cuban missile bases a defense tactic. As for the ridiculous claim the US might use nuclear blackmail, we don't need to deal in the realm of the hypothetical. When the US did have a nuclear monopoly, what did it do? Case closed.
|Aug-18-14|| ||perfidious: <Yeah, and they called the Cuban missile bases a defense tactic. As for the ridiculous claim the US might use nuclear blackmail, we don't need to deal in the realm of the hypothetical. When the US did have a nuclear monopoly, what did it do? Case closed.>|
Whatever one makes of Truman's decision, it was taken during straitened circumstances, not as part of an overall policy of implied nuclear/financial rule by blackmail.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: Times have moved on, as have the personnel and their means, motives and beliefs.|
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <Yeah, and they called the Cuban missile bases a defense tactic.>|
Well the quid pro quo was that the USA agreed to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for a Soviet removal of missiles from Cuba.
Does that tell you anything?
<When the US did have a nuclear monopoly, what did it do?>
Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
it never is and never will be.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <perfidious>
<Whatever one makes of Truman's decision, it was taken during straitened circumstances, not as part of an overall policy of implied nuclear/financial rule by blackmail.>
What straitened circumstances? The US was winning the War, the Japanese were suing for a conditional surrender (ie: leave the Emperor enthoned) and Truman's own generals were advising against using the Bomb.
|Aug-18-14|| ||perfidious: <twinlark> Indeed they have.|
It is troubling, though not all surprising, that <OCF> stubbornly insists upon painting such issues with broad brushes on lines of national origin, religious beliefs, etc. Thinking on such fixed axes tends to rule out anything remotely resembling thoughtful, objective discussion of anything.
Count me as an American who, as you have doubtless gleaned, has no truck with such policies as are pursued by its leaders, regardless of which party's man is the nominal officeholder in Pennsylvania Avenue. The fall will be all the harder from the great height of the American Century. Britain had her turn, as the Roman Empire did long before.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
<This is true for the US, which certainly would not tolerate a hostile force on its Mexican border. What's very worrisome is that some US factions have apparently forgotten that the same applies to Russia and China.>
As disgusting as Israel's actions are in Gaza, this push against the border of Russia itself is far more frightening. Russia will not fall to an external threat without using its nukes any more than the US would.
The proxy war being waged by the US against Russia lacks sanity as the US would have had far more chance of bringing Russia down via one of its interminable and time-tested "colour revolutions", white-anting Putin and his establishment from within.
It wasn't so long ago that Putin was booed at a public gathering by a significant section of the population that was becoming disenchanted with him. Had the US continued its traditional whiteanting from within through organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy and other US-funded "NGOs" that are typically set up to stir up and exacerbate the existing opposition, Russia could have dropped into the US lap like an overripe plum
The course of action taken by the US has unified the Russian population behind Putin in a way that Western leaders couldn't even dream of, let alone hope for.
|Aug-18-14|| ||twinlark: <perfidious>
Agreed. To be fair most of us tend to be fairly fixed around our belief axes after a while, but tend not to be so absolutist about the process.
I like to think I can back my arguments with evidence, although absolute evidence is always impossible, and we are almost never eye witnesses to crucial events in history.
<Count me as an American who, as you have doubtless gleaned, has no truck with such policies as are pursued by its leaders, regardless of which party's man is the nominal officeholder in Pennsylvania Avenue.>
I used to believe in the lesser of two evils, but as Nader said, that is synonymous with the evil of two lessers. Now the choice seems to be not so much one between a progressive and a conservative, as if that has been the case in most of our lifetimes, but which is the less of a warmonger.
What would McCain have done, apart from handing out cookies on the Maidan? Who knows what that crusty old fascist creep would have done? Obama is appalling enough, and Hillary "We Came, We Saw, He Died *giggles*" Clintno (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...) promises to be even more of a warmongering chicken hawk.
<The fall will be all the harder from the great height of the American Century. Britain had her turn, as the Roman Empire did long before.>
Already happening IMO, and so we see an accelerated push by the US against Russia and China before they can set up the Eurasian Union, the New Silk Road, a new reserve currency and other trade and financial measures that would undermine US dominance.
I'm very happy to be living on the other side of the planet from all this mayhem, but less than happy that we have a regime in place (supported by a significant portion of the population) that is so far up the arse of the US administration and its policies that only the toes can be seen wiggling in delight.
Enough ranting on my part. Back to enjoying playing on a US chess site, reading books written by US authors, and watching movies made by US film makers. How anti-American can one get?
|Aug-19-14|| ||heuristic: <Research on them has not yet matured and commercialization will have to be done practically from scratch. I think government involvement may be needed at first>
you & I will have to agree to disagree. for established countries; government funding should be only for theoretical investigations. for developing countries; government has to fund prototypes.|
government involvement is hampered by the procurement methodology and terminable funding.
as previously documented, established companies are doing research _and_ development in reactor and fuel/waste designs.
note that companies are leading the way in _FUSION_ as well:
<I believe that with water cooled reactors, accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl are inevitable>
note that Fukushima Daini did not suffer the same as Fukushima Daiichi.
I believe that accidents and incidents are inevitable regardless of reactor design.
|Aug-19-14|| ||heuristic: <future situation>
sorry for the latency. I had to travel.
thank you for your detailed response.
I am surprised at your pessimistic view. since you offer no possibilities for "surviving/salvaging" after the collapse of the United States; then I have a na´ve observation:
- if the future is worse; then the present is relatively good!
you see the demise of the US due to the debt of either the entire nation or a segment of its citizens or both?
you seem more concerned about money than wealth. to me, an interesting aspect of the US economy is its wealth generating capability.
you seem to discount the fact that the US market provides ready money (even $400) for anybody. to me, credit is a powerful mechanism.
how would the hyper-rich and powerful oligarchy facilitate the demise of the very nation that they thrive in? in what nations, does this oligarchy not exist or have limited power?
<multiple institutions/systems that have ameliorated this condition>
recall the context of this discussion.
- the morbid state of nuclear energy
- the profit motivated companies
and I posted references that indicated NO new construction had occurred in 30 years. so my comment was essentially; how could powerful business be stymied?
and the answer must be: powerful _other_ interests. note that my usage of the word "ameliorate" was for your benefit!
|Aug-19-14|| ||heuristic: <There would be no large scale economic need for oil and gas, if nuclear power comes in cheaper>
i'm not sure how this would happen. energy consumption is broadly :|
nuclear, coal, gas and the renewables are for the first category. and oil is for the other two.
from my limited perspective; market forces will ameliorate(!) the oil dependency.
<thorium based reactors>
note that a previous link indicated the issues with this. especially the cost and difficulty of fuel fabrication.
|Aug-19-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <When the US did have a nuclear monopoly, what did it do?>|
<Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. >
A bit glib, when the context was economic blackmail.
|Aug-19-14|| ||twinlark: <Ohio>
<A bit glib, when the context was economic blackmail.>
What do you mean?
|Aug-19-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <heuristic> Several scrolls up this forum, there are long discussions on nuclear power. I wonder if you have read them?|
<I believe that accidents and incidents are inevitable regardless of reactor design.>
I do agree that accidents in nuclear plants are inevitable. But in case of certain 4th generation nuclear reactors such as the MSR, an accident does not result in an explosion or a melt down that would rapidly spread radioactive material outside the plant because of the physics inherent in the reactor's nature. (There is a long discussion on this several scrolls up.)
In the past several types of nuclear reactors have already used thorium, including MSR and PBR. While thorium technology is not the usual one for nuclear reactors, it has been successfully demonstrated. At present the only functioning PBR is in China, and although it is an experimental one, China is also building two commercial ones (as my link above shows). These commercial PBRs seem to be bigger versions of the experimental pilot reactor. China is also attempting to build an experimental MSR, based on the old experimental ORNL MSR plant.
If a powerful government would decide to build and commercialize 4th gen nuclear plants, I have no doubt it would be able to do so in less than 5 years. Especially because experimental plants already exist. After all the US government did a major nuclear project, building atomic bombs from scratch, in just three years in WW2. Commercialization should be able to take place soon afterward. If business is good (if many countries would buy them), mass production would follow as dictated by the market.
In such a scenario, the world would rapidly shift to 4rth generation nuclear plants within a generation. The energy crisis would be over. It would not matter if we fall off the peak oil and peak gas, or if we reach peak coal.
Nuclear plants produce electrical energy. This however can be converted to chemical energy in the form of molecular hydrogen. If hydrogen production becomes cheaper than oil or natural gas or coal, it can easily be adopted to the transportation, residential, and commercial sectors. Hydrogen-run vehicles already exist. (There was also a discussion on this several scrolls above.) There are already pipelines for hydrogen (at present mainly to petrochemical plants). Market forces would in a natural manner increase the number of hydrogen vehicles and pipelines if hydrogen comes in cheaper than oil, gas, and coal.
|Aug-19-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> Russian media has announced that Russia is pushing the UN Security Council to make public the investigations on the MH17 shoot down and that Kiev should make public the radio communications between Kiev air traffic controllers and the plane before it was shot down. (Naturally I do not see this as making headlines in MSM outlets.)|
Regarding the recent spike in slanted journalism of the MSM (from the Syrian sarin gas attack to MH17), it is to be expected as the MSM is part of the mechanism of control by today's neo-colonialists. RT and the Russian media also do slanted journalism, but IMO they place in more objective facts. I have noticed their claims are more often supported by pictures and videos and interviews.
|Aug-19-14|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
<I have noticed their claims are more often supported by pictures and videos and interviews.>
I've noticed this also. It seems however that the Western trope is that all Russians are liars. Apart from the likes of Kasparov.
|Aug-20-14|| ||heuristic: <visyanbraindoctor: Several scrolls up this forum, there are long discussions on nuclear power. I wonder if you have read them?>
I replied to every one of yours; but not to twinlark's comment about centralized energy generation (with a reference to John Ralston Saul!)
your remarks shift between government funding, reactor design and energy consumption. the long comments for each topic make alignment difficult.
anyway, it's been nice to read your opinions. your dispassionate responses to my replies is appreciated.
|Aug-20-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> The glowing cucumber above seems to be covered by some bioluminescent plant or fungus.|
It's amazing what the mass media can do. Suddenly they have stopped printing news about MH17. Like they were telling us- OK folks it's over, the rebels are to blame, now move along. Or perhaps the new message is- let's pretend it never happened. In either case, the mass murder of the passengers is now in danger of being forgotten as though it was just a bad dream.
|Aug-21-14|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
You're not the first to make that observation. Odessa is another example of something that didn't happen, or if it did, it was tantamount to collective spontaneous combustion.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 228 OF 228 ·
Take the Premium Membership Tour