thorium Reactor

Posted by: jgw

thorium Reactor - 07/27/19 07:48 PM

https://youtu.be/XMuxjHLLk0E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAiHtrWHxK0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: thorium Reactor - 07/30/19 03:06 AM

Thank you for this!
Posted by: jgw

Thorium Reactor - 08/04/19 10:30 PM

You are welcome. Its really time that this technology starts getting used. I am not against the windmills, etc. but this stuff is super safe, won't kill birds and fish, is reliable and, as far as I am concerned, should actually be replacing the large, very dangerous, reactors we have right now (I think we are actually building another one of those!).

Its also interesting that the entire rest of the world is moving on, and into, this technology. You know, them foreign devils like India, France, etc. We used to compete, now we dispair, I fear.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Thorium Reactor - 08/05/19 12:13 AM

Originally Posted By: jgw
You are welcome. Its really time that this technology starts getting used. I am not against the windmills, etc. but this stuff is super safe, won't kill birds and fish, is reliable and, as far as I am concerned, should actually be replacing the large, very dangerous, reactors we have right now (I think we are actually building another one of those!).

Its also interesting that the entire rest of the world is moving on, and into, this technology. You know, them foreign devils like India, France, etc. We used to compete, now we dispair, I fear.


I think you were responding to the thorium thread and it landed here by mistake?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/05/19 10:41 PM

I fixed it!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/05/19 10:50 PM

Quote:
Its also interesting that the entire rest of the world is moving on, and into, this technology.
meh...several places are trying to figure out how to actually build one but so far nobody's got one up and running.

Any day now....
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/05/19 11:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Its also interesting that the entire rest of the world is moving on, and into, this technology.
meh...several places are trying to figure out how to actually build one but so far nobody's got one up and running.

Any day now....


Thorium? China, India and UK all have running thorium nukes right now.
Or were you talking about fusion?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 01:40 AM

Oak Ridge had one running for years, back in the 60's. They tried lots of different variations, but then the government shut the whole thing down. I think it was politics (like GE lobbyists), not any technical roadblocks.

One thing the first video mentioned is that you can use the reaction to extract U-233 and make bombs with it. But he failed to mention that is difficult and dangerous because of the inevitable U-232 contamination. That makes it give off deadly gamma rays, so you can't use a glovebox to machine it. You need robots, else humans die. Any bomb you make has a very limited shelf-life for the very same reason: It decays and you get more U-232 which fissions spontaneously. It's a LOT safer to not extract the U-233 and let it do all that inside the reactor to make electricity.

I think India and China can handle 1960's technology, so I predict success for them and any other country that tries it. I bet China ends up making little reactors they sell all over the world. Hopefully they will sell them to us.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 02:32 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Oak Ridge had one running for years, back in the 60's. They tried lots of different variations, but then the government shut the whole thing down. I think it was politics (like GE lobbyists), not any technical roadblocks.

One thing the first video mentioned is that you can use the reaction to extract U-233 and make bombs with it. But he failed to mention that is difficult and dangerous because of the inevitable U-232 contamination. That makes it give off deadly gamma rays, so you can't use a glovebox to machine it. You need robots, else humans die. Any bomb you make has a very limited shelf-life for the very same reason: It decays and you get more U-232 which fissions spontaneously. It's a LOT safer to not extract the U-233 and let it do all that inside the reactor to make electricity.

I think India and China can handle 1960's technology, so I predict success for them and any other country that tries it. I bet China ends up making little reactors they sell all over the world. Hopefully they will sell them to us.


It was shelved because we were forced to make a Sophie's Choice.
The military wanted the U/Pl fuel cycle for weapons potential, the energy people wanted thorium fuel cycle.
The administration did not want to invest in both and the needs of the military won out. It was the Cold War era.

In retrospect we should have forced the administration to lay out funds for both.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 04:23 AM

Thorium just wasn't as exciting as Uranium. Reactors had to be bigger, better, faster, etc. If they ran on the edge, so much the better. It was a Cold War contest, that lead directly to Chernobyl. Each of their reactors was 20 times as big as anything in the West. They used a plutonium-production design that ran on the hairy edge. The operators had to do a constant balancing act to keep them from melting down.

There is something very appealing in a safe design, like making a Cessna fly straight and level if the pilot drops dead or just steps away. That's the molten salt thorium reactor. You could just have all the operators walk away, and it would keep on chugging along at the same output. It can't run away, because the fissionable material is constantly created by the neutron source. If anything went massively wrong, the core would get hot enough to melt the "freeze plug" and all the molten salt fuel would run down into the reservoir, out of the neutron field. All fission would then stop.

Designing software and a bit of electronic hardware, that was always my central aim. To make it do something reasonable if neglected, and to prevent anything dangerous. My friend and I designed a 30 amp power supply for water purification. If at the beginning of a 60 Hz half-cycle, it detected the current was rising too fast it would shut off for that half-cycle. Result? A BIG power supply that would shut off if the lines got shorted together. Not even a tiny spark!
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 04:30 PM

Quote:
China, India and UK all have running thorium nukes right now.

Show me a picture of one...

Can't can ya. because there isn't one. There is not a single operating molten salt thorium reactor in the world.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 05:09 PM

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi...ow/59407602.cms

google "picture of thorium reactor"
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 05:56 PM

That's a fast breeder reactor. While there are some thorium salts involved it is NOT a molten salt reactor.

Google "molten salt thorium reactor" pictures. All you get is diagrams.

India doesn't have much uranium and nuclear fuel is expensive. But they have lots of thorium which can be fed to certain reactors. The fast breeder creates more fuel(radioactive material) than it uses. It can actually create more fuel for itself than it can burn.

Call it fuel if you want, it sounds like radioactive waste to me.

Lotsa folks working on, it tons of money being spent, best guess is maybe 15 years before one gets hooked up to the grid.

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 08/06/19 11:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
That's a fast breeder reactor. While there are some thorium salts involved it is NOT a molten salt reactor.

Google "molten salt thorium reactor" pictures. All you get is diagrams.

India doesn't have much uranium and nuclear fuel is expensive. But they have lots of thorium which can be fed to certain reactors. The fast breeder creates more fuel(radioactive material) than it uses. It can actually create more fuel for itself than it can burn.

Call it fuel if you want, it sounds like radioactive waste to me.

Lotsa folks working on, it tons of money being spent, best guess is maybe 15 years before one gets hooked up to the grid.



Oak Ridge just restarted their Thorium project again after forty years.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/07/20 07:06 PM

My wife are watching Chernobyl. That reminded me of something that may be of interest. I have talked to a bunch of folks who seem to know all about nuclear reactors. They have all told me one simple fact. We didn't go with Thorium because you can't build a bomb with it. That being the case we didn't. Not only that but then we populated the world with reactors that can be used to build bombs, melt down, poison everything, and kill us all.

it may also be of interest that India has 25% of the world's Thorium. They just built another non-thorium reactor. Wonder why?

I know, we are a peace loving people - right?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/07/20 07:19 PM

The only way to insulate yourself against American imperialism is to have nuclear weapons.

Kinda like Star Wars....and we're NOT the good guys.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/07/20 09:08 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
My wife are watching Chernobyl. That reminded me of something that may be of interest. I have talked to a bunch of folks who seem to know all about nuclear reactors. They have all told me one simple fact. We didn't go with Thorium because you can't build a bomb with it. That being the case we didn't. Not only that but then we populated the world with reactors that can be used to build bombs, melt down, poison everything, and kill us all.

it may also be of interest that India has 25% of the world's Thorium. They just built another non-thorium reactor. Wonder why?

I know, we are a peace loving people - right?


But they along with the Chinese, are still preparing to put thorium reactors back online again. Both nations HAVE working models which have had several years of testing.

We have one too, at Oak Ridge, also tested.
The technology is proven and mature, we just don't have the will to do it yet.
It's like having a winning poker hand and ignoring it.

And we do have plenty of thorium here, by the way.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/07/20 10:42 PM

India obviously wants to be able to make bombs. They have Pakistan and China to worry about. And soon maybe Iran, thanks to Dear Leader.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/08/20 07:57 PM

I think that there is actually a lot of thorium everyplace. I am not sure about us "having the will". These things are not half as complex as the monsters we have now. I am personally for modular reactors (MNR's) but would be all that upset with replacing every one of those we have right now with thorium reactors any way they can. Our current models are DANGEROUS!

I also suspect we got enough bombs already - don' need no more.

Oh, on India - I know. I remember once, I was sitting around with a couple of Indian friends. We were talking about their government (this was about 10 years ago). One of them signed and said; "Our government wants EVERYTHING!". They have a leader, now, that understands that very well indeed.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/08/20 09:37 PM

India actually has too much of one thing: People. Just like China. They have too many people for the modern infrastructure, so only a fraction of their citizens can participate in all the modern conveniences. So they keep large populations locked into inferior roles. India by caste. China by local registration.

Maybe corona virus will solve that problem.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/09/20 08:28 PM

I am curious. How much time have you spent in India? The reason I ask is because India does not, on purpose, keep large parts of their population in "inferior roles". I am not even sure what that means. They do have a poor underclass. We are headed that way ourselves, right now.

The problem is simple - JOBS! All governments, with that problem have things they do to try and ameliorate it. One way was one I saw in Hong Kong, years ago. A hotel was cutting its lawn and they had people, literally, out cutting the lawn with scissors! I am sure you would consider that to be somewhat humiliating. The simple fact was, however, that it was a JOB!@ (and jobs rarely humiliate). I know this because I went out and talked to one. He was actually grateful to have the job!
I can, if you want, give you some examples from India but they are all similar. Which, incidentally, sometimes involves beggars (often considered a job in India)
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/10/20 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I am not even sure what that means.


It means someone is low caste.

Or, more recently, Muslim.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/10/20 07:55 PM

Quote:
In 1948, negative discrimination on the basis of caste was banned by law and further enshrined in the Indian constitution, however the system continues to be practiced in India with devastating social effects
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/11/20 09:44 AM

It may be illegal for the government to discriminate, but it's still deeply embedded in the culture.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/11/20 07:05 PM

India is a pretty strange place. I have heard that there are actually low cast Indians who have done well and actually reached the millionaire place. I don't know any but Indians (dot) have told me that.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/11/20 07:29 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
India is a pretty strange place. I have heard that there are actually low cast Indians who have done well and actually reached the millionaire place. I don't know any but Indians (dot) have told me that.


The now deceased wife of my old video partner in TX went to India to work on a docu piece and she spent a month there living and working among them.

Caste mentality is still somewhat "baked into" the social consciousness, unfortunately.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/12/20 03:57 AM

Of course: Even a hereditary corpse-handler can create a funeral home chain and strike it rich. But he's never going to invited to the upper caste's garden parties. His son is never going to marry a Brahman's daughter.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/12/20 07:57 PM

Yep... All that being said I can think of exactly the same circumstances here - with exactly the same results. We too have a kindofa caste system, its just not thought of that way. I suspect what we are talking about here is called "social stratification" and its pretty endemic.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/13/20 12:31 AM

It all comes back to the struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat....
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/13/20 08:29 PM

Pretty much............ There are, however, differences. If you consider Russia, for instance, where they treated their downtrodden like slaves for a very long time before they actually got pissed off.

As story. I live in the state of Washington. The state capital is in a town called Olympia. So, During the great depression there was a march on the state capital by those upset, broke, and pissed off. There was a couple of Russians watching it all. They were hugely amazed. All the marchers drove to Olympia in their cars. In Russia, they said, the poor did not have cars. American must be a rich country indeed!

This was told to me by a professor of philosophy. he was an interesting guy. He had lost his job because he had been a Communist due to McCarthy. He told me that he took a look at the stock market which allowed people to buy a stake in various means of production. That was when he quit the party. (he later got his job back)
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/13/20 09:57 PM

Jgw, Why is it you imagine that me, and Chunks, and Bernie want to somehow recreate the Soviet Union and call it Pair-O-Dice? Let's see...I have a pie chart here somewhere...

Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 03:26 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Pretty much............ There are, however, differences. If you consider Russia, for instance, where they treated their downtrodden like slaves for a very long time before they actually got pissed off.


That doesn't sound at all familiar.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 06:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: jgw
Pretty much............ There are, however, differences. If you consider Russia, for instance, where they treated their downtrodden like slaves for a very long time before they actually got pissed off.


That doesn't sound at all familiar.


OY!
The working class were exploited until they revolted!

Bougies and Proles! It's built into the Hindu religion and it's caste system. It was built into the USSR, It was built into pre-revolutionary Russia, it's built into the current US economy.

It's built into most societies. The rich write the rules.

Eventually the poor eat them. Then the richest of the poor take charge and immediately begin exploiting the labor of the other poor.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 06:57 PM

First, I was trying to point out that that the phrase; "different strokes ...." can reference entirely different cultures, nations, etc. as well as individuals. India is, for instance, much different than what we have here. My little story was trying to point out that there are different standards for being "poor" and the difference between Russia and the United States was stark. I may also be of interest that it took a german to get the Russians going on their revolution.

"Jgw, Why is it you imagine that me, and Chunks, and Bernie want to somehow recreate the Soviet Union and call it Pair-O-Dice? Let's see...I have a pie chart here somewhere..."
Its not what you want its what can happen. Any politician determined to tell people how to live their lives is on the way. Not necessarily on a road to communism so much as a road to tyrant/dictator/despot regardless of the claimed type of government. If you take a good look at Bernie's site, and plans, there is a distinct flavor there that I don't find exactly settling. it basically boils down to being a bit nervous when anybody knows what's best for everybody else.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 07:28 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
First, I was trying to point out that that the phrase; "different strokes ...." can reference entirely different cultures, nations, etc. as well as individuals. India is, for instance, much different than what we have here. My little story was trying to point out that there are different standards for being "poor" and the difference between Russia and the United States was stark. I may also be of interest that it took a german to get the Russians going on their revolution.

"Jgw, Why is it you imagine that me, and Chunks, and Bernie want to somehow recreate the Soviet Union and call it Pair-O-Dice? Let's see...I have a pie chart here somewhere..."
Its not what you want its what can happen. Any politician determined to tell people how to live their lives is on the way. Not necessarily on a road to communism so much as a road to tyrant/dictator/despot regardless of the claimed type of government. If you take a good look at Bernie's site, and plans, there is a distinct flavor there that I don't find exactly settling. it basically boils down to being a bit nervous when anybody knows what's best for everybody else.


Given the authoritarian nightmare we have right now, I'm okay with having the socialists take a crack at governing.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 08:44 PM

Governing is a bit different from having government tell everybody how to live their lives, I think. Socialism (including Social Socialism) seems to want to do that as they obviously know best (and make no bones about it).
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 09:06 PM

Quote:
a road to tyrant/dictator/despot regardless of the claimed type of government.

Interesting how the government you seem to be espousing is the one that got us our current dictator.

Quote:
it basically boils down to being a bit nervous when anybody knows what's best for everybody else.


That's why we look around the world to see what's working best in other places. Is it just a coincidence that the ten happiest nations are all social democracies?

The happiest nations are where workers are exploited the least.

Speaking of nuclear reactors how bout that Rolls Royce Reactor in Trawsfynydd! Might start building it next year.

I dunno if it burns gas or diesel.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/14/20 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Governing is a bit different from having government tell everybody how to live their lives, I think. Socialism (including Social Socialism) seems to want to do that as they obviously know best (and make no bones about it).


This is why Canadians and Norwegians are just hive minds, of course.

You are making a category error.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/15/20 01:14 AM

Well, we did have the choice of business as usual versus Trump in 2016. Enough people in enough places opted against business as usual. And how different from a dictatorship is social democracy? Imagine that, a government that exists to serve the people, and not just the 1%! We just might end up with Bernie because most people want something different. Their first try did not go well, so try something different.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/15/20 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
it basically boils down to being a bit nervous when anybody knows what's best for everybody else.


You mean like when CIGNA was telling folks they knew what's best for everyone else back in 2007?

Nataline Sarkisyan was an American teenager with recurrent leukemia. Her case became part of the health care reform debate in the United States in 2007 when Cigna HealthCare denied coverage for a liver transplant operation.
I guess CIGNA knew best.
By the way, seventeen year old Nataline Sarkisian wasn't underinsured. She was on the family policy paid for by her father, a top exec at Mercedes-Benz.
Yeah, that's right, it wasn't a "Cadillac" plan, it was a Mercedes plan! And they STILL refused to cover the surgery anyway.
That sort of thing is about to return to the US healthcare system because right now there isn't a damn thing we can do to stop Trump when he brings back rescission for preexisting conditions and picking winners and losers for lifesaving procedures.

What you're basically doing, even if you don't realize it, is giving aid and comfort to the old "death panels" argument but only this time around it's been given the "Lee Atwater" treatment where they use different terms and labels, like "government knows what's best" or "taking away our choices".

Your employer chooses your health plan.
Your insurance chooses your healthcare provider.
Your insurance chooses what prescriptions get covered.
Your insurer chooses your doctors.


Tell me again what choices you get to make in all of that.
It is the worst and weakest argument you can make because it is not the reality.
And it's even less the reality when you realize that you might get laid off and that might also jeopardize your healthcare coverage.

People are being told they should have a choice when they've never had a choice to begin with.

I'll tell who the only people who have real choices are, the ones who are wealthy enough that they can afford to pay for their healthcare entirely in cash.
Is anybody on the Rant that wealthy?
Wait, don't tell me, just tell me if you're NOT that wealthy, how's that instead?

DING DING DING - I am NOT that wealthy.
Show of hands, anyone else not that wealthy?
If you're not, the notion of "choice" is an illusion.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/15/20 05:52 PM

Dude, is them all the choices I get?
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/15/20 09:45 PM

It seems I have upset some socialists. First, I believe that Socialism is a slippery path for somebody, or a small group of somebodys, to take over and tell everybody else how to live.

Second, i don't really care if somebody wants to be a socialist, what I actually really care about are Socialists claiming to be Socialists and running under the Democratic banner. This simply means that the Democrats are going to get crushed if one of those are running this year as president. Presidents, and those who run to be Presidents tend to represent. In this case they paint the entire Democratic party as socialist and that means that they are incredibly unlikely to win. I am not alone with this one. Those of us who really want Trump gone really want him gone and those claiming to be socialist, and trying to paint the entire Democratic party as socialist are, basically, helping Trump win!

I really don't understand why anybody wants to even claim to be a Socialist. That has been so demonized that 'everybody' knows what 'they' are. Anybody who doesn't understand that has a problem. The Republicans are genuine experts at demonization. When they are through gaslighting and demonizing the subject is wrecked, insofar as getting elected is concerned. This is simply the way it is. I am not claiming its right, I am not denying anybody's right to do whatever, i am just say, in this particular case, I do not think its a very bright thing to do if you want Trump gone. I think its going to be hard enough to get rid of a man who has a very good economy, full employment, etc. I know, there are things bad one can say about Trump but those two things alone are enough for a LOT of people.

there is a reason that Trump really wants to run against Bernie. The Republicans really want to run against Bernie. They make no bones about that one. If Bernie gets the nod then the Democrats will have to climb a mountain that will probably be impossible to climb. Given the economy that's just the tip of the problem.

This is just what I believe and there are a lot of others who feel exactly the same way. just saying....
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/15/20 10:00 PM

I am certainly not that wealthy. Very few people are. But Trump cannot end ACA or even change it much. What he has done is add other crappy insurance plans, and anybody who signs up for those is an idiot and deserves what they get: Con-job insurance from a con man.

I hope lots of Trump's followers DO sigh up for those plans. Serves them right.

Just like I'm thinking gun control may be a bad idea, because most gun deaths are suicides. So gun nuts are killing themselves. Most gun nuts are Trump supporters, so fewer people vote for him because they are dead. Is this a bad thing?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/15/20 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
It seems I have upset some socialists. First, I believe that Socialism is a slippery path for somebody, or a small group of somebodys, to take over and tell everybody else how to live.

Second, i don't really care if somebody wants to be a socialist, what I actually really care about are Socialists claiming to be Socialists and running under the Democratic banner. This simply means that the Democrats are going to get crushed if one of those are running this year as president. Presidents, and those who run to be Presidents tend to represent. In this case they paint the entire Democratic party as socialist and that means that they are incredibly unlikely to win. I am not alone with this one. Those of us who really want Trump gone really want him gone and those claiming to be socialist, and trying to paint the entire Democratic party as socialist are, basically, helping Trump win!

I really don't understand why anybody wants to even claim to be a Socialist. That has been so demonized that 'everybody' knows what 'they' are. Anybody who doesn't understand that has a problem. The Republicans are genuine experts at demonization. When they are through gaslighting and demonizing the subject is wrecked, insofar as getting elected is concerned. This is simply the way it is. I am not claiming its right, I am not denying anybody's right to do whatever, i am just say, in this particular case, I do not think its a very bright thing to do if you want Trump gone. I think its going to be hard enough to get rid of a man who has a very good economy, full employment, etc. I know, there are things bad one can say about Trump but those two things alone are enough for a LOT of people.

there is a reason that Trump really wants to run against Bernie. The Republicans really want to run against Bernie. They make no bones about that one. If Bernie gets the nod then the Democrats will have to climb a mountain that will probably be impossible to climb. Given the economy that's just the tip of the problem.

This is just what I believe and there are a lot of others who feel exactly the same way. just saying....


I grant you EVERYTHING, but stop for a moment and look back at all the moderates and consider what our reward has been for fielding those moderates.

Allowing Trump the power to pick our candidates, we might as well hand him the election anyway if that's the issue.
While many are worried about what he's going to do running against a guy like Bernie, to them I ask, have you considered what they HAVE done and WILL continue TO DO against a moderate?

Fear of Bernie is one thing, but there's nothing on record yet.
We have twenty-something years worth of evidence as to what they do to moderates. They CRUSH them by any means necessary, including cheating and destroying the system itself, even while cheering at bon mots like

"I see myself as a Leninist, deconstructing the administrative state."

That's one of Trump's biggest influencers, Steve Bannon.
FIRED? Don't believe it for a second, Bannon still has Trump's ear and the ear of everyone who reads Breitbart.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 12:42 AM

Trump sez, "Bernie's a Socialist! He's gonna wreck the economy by giving you free stuff!!"

Bernie sez, "King Kon is a Corporate Socialist! He is wrecking America and giving it to the 1%! I'm gonna give the regular people what you need to live securely without fear and make a real economy that works for you!!"
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 12:43 AM

Then they can get into Trump's $1 trillion annual deficit spending...
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 12:45 AM

Side note: We sorta strayed pretty far from thorium.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 12:55 AM

Quote:
It seems I have upset some socialists.


Not at all my friend! Someone has to play foil to the harebrained schemes of the far left!

A living wage. Education. Health insurance. Legal weed.

Scary stuff I know. After that we'll begin to gulag the Republicans.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 12:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Side note: We sorta strayed pretty far from thorium.

I tried to nudge it back...
Originally Posted By: Greger
Speaking of nuclear reactors how bout that Rolls Royce Reactor in Trawsfynydd! Might start building it next year.

I dunno if it burns gas or diesel.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 06:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Side note: We sorta strayed pretty far from thorium.

I tried to nudge it back...
Originally Posted By: Greger
Speaking of nuclear reactors how bout that Rolls Royce Reactor in Trawsfynydd! Might start building it next year.

I dunno if it burns gas or diesel.


You know me, I am all for the modular mini-nukes.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 01:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Side note: We sorta strayed pretty far from thorium.


ROTFMOL popcorn2

Ya got that right...

Txs for the morning chuckle.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 06:30 PM

Quote:
The Republicans really want to run against Bernie. They make no bones about that one. If Bernie gets the nod then the Democrats will have to climb a mountain that will probably be impossible to climb. Given the economy that's just the tip of the problem.

This is just what I believe and there are a lot of others who feel exactly the same way. just saying....


And I really want Bernie to run against Trump. Because he'll bring out the independents and non voters. He'll bring out young voters in droves. He'll bring out people who want change. Even you will vote for him. Because you hate Trump. Black people might have liked Biden but they'll vote for Bernie because they hate Trump.

Everybody and his brother will be storming the polls to vote against Trump. And Bernie is the exact opposite of Trump.

If Bernie manages to clinch the nomination he's our best bet to see the landslide victory we need to shut the Trumpists down.

The best chance we have to flip the senate. And the best chance to enact maybe just a tiny bit of change. Like Obama promised but never delivered. Were you worried about Obama's chances of winning because he was a self-described black man? I'm still hoping for change.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 08:44 PM

Given the results in the last couple of outings it looks as if the middle tend to have almost twice as many voters. If, for instance, Amy and mayor pete cut a deal (one pres and one vice pres) they would swamp Bernie. Remember too, the Republicans are currently being encouraged to vote in Democratic parties for Bernie. They are freely admitting that Bernie is their candidate choice for the Democrats. By the time they are through with him he will be destroyed if their history is any indication of what they can do when they put their minds to it. Look what they did to John Kerry! (a genuine war hero with the medals to prove it and they convinced large groups that he was a fake and he lost the election). Bernie, for instance, in all the years he was in the congress passed a whole 2 bills, he also carries a lot of other baggage and the title of socialist will not help).

I also think that political druthers is sometimes decided by talking to others who believe the same. This is called wishful thinking. Ya gotta see the whole thing, talk to the other sides and even the stuff you hate to understand it all. I try, and fail miserably. I will vote for Bernie if he runs, but I hope he doesn't because I don't think he can win.

Every time there is an election the politicians always claim that the current election is the most important in the entire history of the nation. I feel this is particularly true of this one. I am not even sure that if Trump loses that he will leave the White House easily and might even start a civil war. I sincely hope that I am wrong!!!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/16/20 08:54 PM

I kinda doubt that civil war meme: He's pissed of the top military brass. They would consider all his orders illegal and the threat of hanging for treason would reach down the ranks quickly.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/17/20 07:33 PM

If I remember correctly the top civil war generals, for the south, were also top generals in the union army?
Posted by: Greger

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/17/20 09:29 PM

There weren't a lot of other armies employing local Generals at the time.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/18/20 05:52 AM

But Lincoln did not meet with all his top Generals upon taking office, insult them gravely, and make them all realize he was a moron. Trump did. That's why he got a few of them to serve in cabinet positions: They felt the need to protect America from Trump. They are all gone now.

He may have some supporters in the lower ranks, but the guys at the top are all smart and very well vetted before they get there. They know he's unfit for the office. Hell, most of the Republicans in Congress know he's unfit for the office. Most of them are also very well educated and very dedicated to the armed forces relationship to America. They know their history, and are not going to support a coup for a tinpot dictator. Not at all the Trump supporter-type. They are very good at recognizing illegal orders.
Posted by: jgw

Re: Thorium Reactor - 02/18/20 07:05 PM

I have not read that much about the civil war. However, that being said, I betcha were folks taking the same line before all hell broke loose. Civil wars, I suspect, are kinda different from regular wars and nobody knows how they really start. We do know, however, that this nation, right now, has a bigger percentage of the electorate (close to 50%) than Hitler had when he took over (only around 30%) and that's just for starters.

Most of us here agree that Trump is a loose leaf loon. Some think he is stupid as well. We are talking about somebody who now literally owns the Republican party and beat all comers with relative ease. He was able to beat being convicted by the senate after getting impeached by (I think) unconstitutionally refusing any oversight whatsoever with utter impunity (because, I think, the Democratic House lacked enough gumption to use their constitutional power to get it done). The man may be an ignoramus but he is canny, clever, and flat out deadly and nobody has been able to stop him yet.

I have heard even Democrats say that he is, without a doubt, the most powerful president in the history of the nation.

Anyway, until he is dead he is a danger to me and mine and I WANT HIM GONE!