Comments by "David Himmelsbach" (@davidhimmelsbach557) on "REPORT Trump could turn the US into a nuclear energy powerhouse" video.

Ginger I solved all of this before you were born. 1) Build atomic plants in Washington State -- Puget Sound is DEEP -- and then float them to off shore anchorages -- BELOW sea level... as big buckets. Wire the juice to the shore as DC current. ( Can't transmit AC power through sea water. ) (sea water cooling, no towers per your pic.) 2) Said systems are to be designed for 'mass production' -- as are jumbo jets like the A380. HUGE savings in regulatory hassels. Locate the plants on Federal leases -- outside the jurisdiction of California, et al. 3) Guard them with USMC garrisons... + USN back up. 4) In extremis pull the plug and let sea water flood the bucket. Thus, it's impossible to trigger a China Syndrome. Every plant would be earthquake proof, tsunami proof. If really necessary, refloat a damaged unit and sink in 7,000 feet of water. (Marianas) 5) Each bucket would be both stationary and yet semi-floating. Half its weight would be sustained by sea water bouyancy. (sp) 6) Rent said units to Australia, Japan, et al. (Fifty-year leases) 7) Transition to breeder technologies in the out-years. ( Say, a century from now. )
8
Mother Nature solves all carbon capture. Biological sequestration occurs at an exponential tempo as the partial pressure of CO2 rises. This is a law of nature. It's not a linear co-relation. Even now, CO2 pollution is causing epic rises in crop yields -- which is never acknowledged -- but of course. My credentials? I got Freon out of the atmosphere -- starting December 1974. Somebody had to pitch it to Rowland. So, yeah, I'm a Nobel Laureate -- once removed. Rowland did the removing. I have MANY other astounding credits to my existence -- but I'm never credited. Oh well. Like Sherlock, my work must be its own reward. No-one else will.
7
I've long posted that Soviet reactor designs were DUAL use. My explanation has been deleted, entirely. As for the fiasco, it took the Swedes FOUR attempts to get to the bottom of matters. The USSR kept lying, lying and lying. The actual boner: the principal operator at the controls was FIDDLING with them -- so as to see the system spike and recover. This was solely HIS idea. He FA and FO. Reactors based on Carbon 12 moderator piles (the Soviet scheme) are inherently prone to RUN-AWAY reactor dynamics. This effect moves faster than any possible control scheme. Even scramming the reactor will not catch it in time. (!!!) It's for this reason that the US has NEVER promoted such schemes for power production. After the Chernobyl fiasco, the US turned down the Hanford plants another 60%. The AEC doesn't want them to even reach boiling temperatures. (!) This new policy is rarely known by civilians. The MSM simply edited it out of the broadcast news. It's not a government secret. The AEC adopted light water reactors with enriched Uranium 235 precisely because -- at the atomic level -- they can't RUN-AWAY like Chernobyl. Atomic physics prohibits this dynamic. So there has never been an equivalent to Chernobyl across the entire American atomic industry. Exception: the original Hanford plants up in Washington State. They produce no electric power -- and are totally optimized for Plutonium 239 production. Weapons grade Plutonium is a bitch to create in a electrical power oriented atomic reactor. You have to either keep shutting it down - or rig up some scheme to constantly shift Uranium 238 in and out every few weeks -- which is a true PITA for plant operators. The Soviets actually did do this, though. Only now do they realize that they've made their entire nation incredibly vulnerable should any enemy bombard their power plants. The USSR would have Chernobyls all across the land even if the USA never struck with atomic bombs. (!!!) Mere precision weapons would suffice. Oops!
3
@masonpalazzolo2387 The courts have over-turned the ancient prohibition.
2
Not quite. The Soviet scheme was DUAL use. The Bolsheviks were getting electric production at the same time they were running U-238 thru, over and over, to crank out Pu-239. The conversion process requires that the target Uranium be kicked out within 14-days lest it become utterly ruined via U-240 contamination. This nuclide destroys atomic detonation, it's a (neutron) poison. This issue was what all of the early atomic bomb tests were all about. Cycling through Uranium was an expensive PITA. (Well, it could not be helped.) The US, at Hanford, never did that. We set up our weapons reactors strictly for U to Pu conversion -- and threw away the heat. This decision was done for SPEED. We were in the fight of our lives, when Nazi Germany was deemed to be ahead of our Manhattan Project. Between Oppenheimer and Harry Hopkins, the Bolsheviks had ALL of our atomic secrets. Hopkins even sent over the materials required for Fat Man and the Hanford reactors. (!!!) [ The blue prints, concepts reduced to engineering specs. ] All of this history has been denied ever since, of course. It matters not that the GRU & KGB brag on getting Commie Oppenheimer to commit high treason in wartime. Of course, Oppie was struck by self pity when his clearances were finally removed as it became too obvious to Truman & Coy that Oppenheimer was the true leaker. No way could the other traitors provide the goods to Stalin which triggered the most expensive war in history. ALL other atomic powers gained their knowledge by way of our Manhattan Project geniuses. It was all too much for any other nation -- including Britain and France. The USSR got the jump on our allies because Oppie gave away the goods -- as did Harry Hopkins -- by the truck load ! The latter was, de facto, the American president in early 1945. Hopkins sent the stuff under his fake presidential authority for FDR. He was as out to lunch as President Biden is today. He was a dead man rolling. The Oak Ridge scheme sucked down 20% of all of America's electric power production. Now, was that expensive? You bet ! When France and Britain saw the internal true costs, they went a different direction. No-one had that kind of money and electricity to spare. This is why Little Boy has never been replicated by another nation. It is an insanely expensive technology. Iran has been using the European enrichment technology -- which uses a fraction of the electric power used by the Manhattan scheme. But, you probably know that already. All of the above became idiot obvious during the Yeltsin years when Russian college kids published to the Web all of the stuff the USA sent to the USSR via LendLease authorities. In that huge database were the VERY peculiar materials required exclusively by a Hanford style atomic reactor designed to produce Plutonium 239. The kids didn't even realize what they had exposed. The dump was THAT vast. The atomic materials were on the last two pages. Only with expertise would anyone realize what was being told. Glad I could help you out.
1
@BenQ.-ys4kp There is a LAG between CO2 emissions and the response of the biota. During the Carboniferous Period Mother Nature was able to handle CO2 thousands of times higher than that which we've seen for millions of years in the geological record. And yes, we could not survive the CO2 levels of that Period. For us, 2% CO2 levels are perilous. Coal deposits show us that insects with 36" wingspans survived back then. (!) So even O2 levels were astounding back then. ALL coal deposits seem to date from that Period. More recently, Mother Nature only seems to create peat.
1
@nedks11 Australia has the world's largest Uranium mine -- and it's not even a Uranium mine! It's a copper deposit -- so vast that the trivial fraction of Uranium is astounding by the standards of Uranium mining. In this, it's not too surprising. A staggering fraction of all gold and silver captured is the result of copper mining, too. They are valued at many multiples of the main deposit (gram for gram) because they are gold and silver. The end result: a Uranium mine that looks and functions in an ordinary manner. There is a high grade Uranium deposit up in Canada. There is a sweet video explaining what they're doing to obtain it up on YT. It takes trivial amounts of labor and environmental impact to extract its Uranium. Watch it some time. It refutes your thesis entirely. I'm a big fan of atomic power, solar power (PV arrays) and hydroelectric power. (Amazonian watershed => enough juice for the Western Hemisphere all by itself.) If properly and economically exploited, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Columbia have enough juice to become wealthier than the Arab oil exporters -- and that electricity will only end when the Sun stops shining. In the bigger picture, forget the hydrogen economy. It's incompatible with steel piping -- which we depend upon. Stay with methane/natural gas. Good enough beats perfection. CNG is already economically successful -- and it's so environmentally clean -- there's nothing to complain about.
1
There is no such thing as a Thorium reactor. They ALL burn U-233. Sheesh. U-233 is the ultimate atomic explosive. It's the basis of the back-pack nuke. This technology should be shunned because it's the easiest route to atomic break-out. The USA and USSR realized this decades ago -- and on the down low decided to stay away from this nuclide. It's just too dangerous for humanity.
1