Comments by "David Elliott" (@davidelliott5843) on "Joe Scott" channel.

  1. Have you seen the cost of hamster food?
    16
  2. Reprocessing is a serious engineering challenge and heavily regulated. Chemical processing to turn the fuel pellets into salts is really easy and the regulators are interested in safety only. Those fuel salts can be burnt in fast spectrum molten salt reactors.
    15
  3. Each step is a percentage of the previous percentage. That way it can never go below zero. Gas out of the ground 20% lost = 80% Power generated at 60% 80 x 0.6 = 48% Power transmitted to house at 90% 48 x 0.9 = 43.2% Efficiency charging battery 90% 43.2 x 0.9 = 38.8 Efficiency dis-charging battery 90% 38.8 x 0.9 = 35% Efficiency of motor and transmission 90% 35 x 0.9 = 31.5% energy conversion of gas from the ground to moving your Lekky car along. Engines can burn gas but that 80% figure at your meter drops to just 24% at the wheels and quite possibly even worse.
    13
  4. Talk dirt to me. Oh leaf me alone.
    10
  5.  @tonychen76  Those people would have never got thyroid cancer if the USSR had admitted there was problem and issued iodine tablets. They didn't so people absorbed radioactive iodine and eventually got cancer. At least they were treated early so survived. Molten salt reactors don't release radioactive iodine 131 or caesium 137 or any of the volatile isotopes because they form stable salts within the reactor. You "could" remove the lid and apart from neutrons and radiation being emitted there is no nasty gas or dust release. Put the lid back and the emissions stop. I'm not suggesting that's a great idea, but it illustrates how safe and stable the core of a molten salt reactor is. The Oak Ridge MSR was shut down every Friday night and restarted it on Monday morning. They didn't fuss about power control because the thing was fundamentally load following. Reducing the heat demand causes the salt to warm up, the reaction slows down d the heat in/out rebalances. All within the safe operating range. Imagine doing any of that with a PWR. Oh yes they did - at a place called Chernobyl.
    8
  6.  @talltroll7092  New Scientist says - Chernobyl will have caused about 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers, compared with several hundred million cancer cases from other causes. My words - Not trivial but certainly not as bad as "experts" predicted. We do not know how many resulted in deaths. Even the satff who suffered acute radiation sickness (ARS) during the accident were not all killed. Some are still alive.
    7
  7. Don’t forget the human transplant organ farms in China. Anyone can be victimised including children.
    7
  8. Slaughterbots will be well controlled so good guys are safe and bad guys will never get their own versions. Military-industrial-complex looks on inscrutably.
    6
  9. We don’t have an engine that can constantly accelerate/decelerate at 1G.
    6
  10.  @texmex9721  They were stunningly brave and we all owe them far more than we realise. On the other hand their lack of dying shows that the human body is better adapted to radiation damage than we realise. Too much of anything will kill, but maybe we are more scared of ionising radiation than we need to be.
    6
  11. Don’t forget motorbikes. That fell over when you stopped big ones used tyres like fuel and a Tesla can out accelerate and out corner them.
    6
  12. Result is not the same. It could be a commercial competitor who hacks down a company’s billing system so they can take over the assets
    4
  13. That’s a bum joke. Where’s the door?
    4
  14. The US Aquatic Species Project grew oil rich diatomic algae to use for fuel. It was closed down about 5 years before Gulf War 2.
    3
  15. U233 in a LFTR would not leave the power plant and might not even leave the reactor, it simply remains in the fuel salt where it's burnt. There's no need to handle it. It's very high radioactivity makes it useless as bomb fuel.
    3
  16. Just a point about regalith - Mars has its own version with added toxic stuff.
    3
  17. Coal and oil do huge damage to the planet regardless of global warming. If they were not so cheap they'd have gone long ago. If LFTRs really could make energy as cheap as Sorensen suggests, fossil fuels, windmills and solar panels would die overnight. I suspect that's the real reason that politicians are not interested.
    3
  18.  @MrMattumbo  Nuclear power has directly killed less than 200 people over the life of the whole industry. Most of that is Chernobyl which is a special case with a fundamentally dangerous reactor operated by communists who let it burn for a week before they admitted there was a problem. Nuclear bombs and their production are a whole different story, but they are not nuclear power and should not be confused with nuclear power.
    3
  19.  @zigzagduck952  Check out "Radiation and Reason" by Wade Allen.
    3
  20. NASA had amazing ideas but completely forgot that anything run by government costs 10x and takes 10x longer than any commercial project.
    3
  21. Check out Ian Scott from Moltex and Ed Pheil from Elysium. High level nuclear waste still contains 95% of the fissile energy. That's why it's active for thousands of years. They both have new plants that will burn down that 95% to produce 20 times more power than the original plant ever did. Their waste has a 30 year half life, against 30,000 years for the currently stored high level waste.
    3
  22. One day they might get more energy out than they put in. But it will never be low cost and will still generate nuclear waste. On top of that, the fuel (deuterium) is extremely difficult to refine
    2
  23. Google Aquatic Species Project/Program
    2
  24. The Mars atmosphere makes re-entry so tough because there is enough to burn up the spacecraft as it drops out of orbit but not enough for parachutes to get you safely to the ground. The dust is razor sharp and electrically charged so it sticks to stuff. Door seals and space suits will get trashed.
    2
  25. Moltex and Elysium have fast spectrum molten salt reactors. Elysium uses a tank of fuel where the reaction takes place with six heat exchanges around the central core. Moltex puts the fuel into nuclear spec stainless tubes inside a box that carries a chloride salt without the fuel. Chloride carrier salts sealed away from any oxygen (reducing conditions) are less corrosive than the pressurised hot water used in today's PWRs.
    2
  26. It would need nuclear power. No problem with molten salt tech. PWR far too heavy to get there and far too fussy to control. Plutonium 238 RTGs as used on deep space missions is far too inefficient (low power) and we don’t have much of the stuff.
    2
  27. Now take a look at the Elysium and Moltex fast reactors which burn the irradiated “waste” nuclear fuel. They are molten salt types - Intrinsically safe, cheap to build and cheap to operate and never need a gram of new fuel.
    2
  28. Power plants will go down meaning that water and sewerage will also fail. You need composting toilets and a well drilled direct into the bunker.
    2
  29. 13 metres is about 42 feet. Four storeys are pretty high.
    2
  30. India has spent many years working on a thorium solid fuel and so far failed. Thorium was dropped in favour of uranium by the USA exactly because it wont work well in solid fuel systems and the fissile fuel (U233) is too radioactively hot for bomb material.
    2
  31. Campi Flegrei under Naples is said to be far more dangerous than Yellowstone. Vesuvius (comparatively a mere pimple) shows just how nasty that caldera will be - one day.
    2
  32. The first people to reach the Americas were Norwegian. Vikings got to North America around AD 1000. They also settled Greenland but moved out after AD 1300 due to the much cooler Little Ice Age climate period developing.
    2
  33. The snag with slow accelerating thrusters is they only get you half way there. The craft has to slow down (or overshoot Mars) so the other half of the journey is decelerating.
    2
  34. Solar power is not much use on the Moon with its 14 day nights. On Mars, the panels need to be twice the size because the sun is not so strong. All info discussed by Sorensen on other channels.
    2
  35. People carrying drones use power to hold themselves up. Why do they do this when “normal” planes can glide. Try that with a drone.
    2
  36. I imagine it becomes more difficult to increase the ion drive voltage between the plates as the ions move from A to B.
    1
  37. In 2013, Europe was spoiling for a(other) fight. But the real damage was caused by Britain joining the fight to support France. Britain had no useful land army and had to go on a total war footing from almost day one. But in we went. It should have been clear even in 2014 that Britain had far more to lose than to gain. But we were led by idiots.
    1
  38. Solar panels are 50% as effective because Mars is further from the sun. They will also get dulled and abraded by that grinder wheel dust.
    1
  39. A big advantage of molten salt reactors is they don't produce pure iodine and caesium which exit a PWR meltdown as gaseous products. They would simply make their own salt in a LFTR (which can'y boil away).. The Neutron poison Xenon135 is simply sparged away and stored until it's decayed to low levels. Hydrogen isotopes are not discussed but as there's no water in the core is it a problem?
    1
  40. Don't worry. Monkey Pox will soon mutate and become Mega Pox. It wont come out of China - obviously.
    1
  41. Heavily filtered air means lots of filters to be replaced and thrown into landfill.
    1
  42. We do not need any of this. Nuclear power is zero CO2 the new reactor designs (molten salt) remove all of the reasons to not use nuclear. TheMoltex going up in Canada is cheap enough to put coal out of business. We had the Medieval Warm Period from AD900 to AD1300. We then had a cold period from AD1300 to around 1900. The Maunder Minimum 1650 to 1750 was volcanic as the Joe says.
    1
  43. Electrons are small Electrons are very small Electrons are the smallest of the big three nuclear particles. But the amount of energy to move just one across the whole universe across the whole of time would be humongous. I guess it’s why the CMV is not at absolute zero.
    1
  44. All the reasons why liquid metal batteries work so well are the same reasons why molten salts nuclear is so compelling.
    1
  45. That saves less than you think because the fridge and freezer will power up to chill themselves down again as will the water heating if you use electric.
    1
  46. SLS is a make-work project for the makers of rockets. They don’t want reusable. Why would they when NASA hands them cheques for disposable rockets.
    1
  47. If climate change was real the world elites would be moving to higher ground. However they all have expensive costal properties. So what’s going on?
    1
  48. I suspect pre humans very quickly started developing tools. Their progress was limited by (lack of) infrastructure and the very low chance that metals would be discovered. Once that did happen, the line to today was inevitable.
    1
  49. The Lunar night lasts 14 days so a surface moon base will need a power source. Kirk Sorensen rediscovered the molten salt nuclear reactor when he was tasked by NASA to solve the problem.
    1
  50. In the first few million years the universe was too hot for matter to exist so maybe that's why it didn't all fall into its own black hole. But we weren't there at the time.
    1
  51. Parícutin in Mexico is a cinder cone volcano that’s supposed to have blown itself out. How many of these super volcanoes empty their caldera and will never blow off like that again?
    1
  52. The only way outside on Mars is inside a space suit. Sunlight won’t be part Martian evolution. People will live underground with pods on the surface containing food plantations.
    1
  53. Tesla is already ahead on batteries and autonomous data. Their next battery is 500,000 miles. Perhaps 750K if used like that (abused) test car.
    1
  54. Could there be a puff ball planet or maybe a massive k next causing gravity lensing.
    1
  55. Why do we ignore the latest ultra safe low cost nuclear power options that DO NOT create waste that’s dangerous for 300,000 years? Why do we persist with white elephant power plants? Such as French Flamanville and U.K. Hinkley Point. Potentially dangerous high pressure reactors made safe at massive cost. AND their waste is dangerous for 300,000 years. Regardless of global warming it is ridiculous that we actively hold back new energy technology. Especially when it’s zero CO2 and safer than even the safest energy source we have.
    1
  56. Nuclear power can manufacture ammonia with zero CO2. Ammonia can fuel engines. Why are we not doing this?
    1
  57. A man with cancer recently had a total recovery after infection with COVID-19. It seems the virus woke up his immune system which killed his tumours. For the rest of us enough vitamin D is highly important. The official dose is adequate for bone health. It’s not enough for a properly working immune system. Check it out.
    1
  58. People complain about Starlink sats the size of a table. Something miles across would be a massive blot on the skyscape. Not to mention the reflected messing with nighttime temperatures. None of it could be recycled at end of life. Not to mention the rocket fuel to put it up there.
    1
  59. Search for Ian Scott (Moltex) and Ed Pheil (Elysium) on You Tube. You may be very surprised. Moltex and Elysium have fast spectrum reactors that use a liquid fuel in the form of molten salt. Being fast spectrum there is no carbon moderator. They are fully engineered to burn irradiated used nuke fuel. The old PWR, CANDU and British AGR all use solid fuel pellets encased in metal tubes. The nuclear reaction releases gasses like caesium, iodine and noble gasses. By the time about 4% of the fuel's energy has been used, the internal pressure is so huge they have to be taken out and stored in deep water pools. Moltex and Elysium have a simple chemical process that converts the fuel pellets into salts. Don't confuse with reprocessing which is highly complex and very expensive. These used fuel salts are then put into a fast spectrum reactor and burnt. Its a liquid fuel so expansion is no issue. The gasses like iodine and caesium just become a salt within the salt fuel so there is no gas to leak. The noble gasses have a short half life so get separated and stored for a few weeks until they lose their radioactivity. These reactors (like all molten salts) are intrinsically safe. If they overheat the reaction slows down. If they cool the reaction speeds up. Safety shut down systems are required by law but the power output is fully self balancing. They burn down the used nuclear fuel until just 1% remains. The half life drops from 30,000 years to 30 years. These plants can also burn age expired plutonium bomb cores. The chemical fuel process mixes the plutonium isotopes making a goo that useless for bombs but works great in a fast spectrum reactor.  But what about all the depleted uranium? There is 200x of the stuff per every U235 that went into nuke fuel. Ed Pheil of Elysium says he can also burn that. Moltex probably could - but regulations etc. These plants are not in use is entirely, because the regulatory processes move at a glacial pace. Moltex are the farthest ahead with a plant expected to be on line in Canada burning CANDU irradiated fuel.  USA has completely rewrite is regulations as they were written for PWRs and are useless for anything else. UK has a back to basics regulator thats notoriously opaque and glacially slow. Canada works at a reasonable pace with open demands. France? It wasn't invented in France.
    1
  60. Other than fish all vertebrates have the same form. Four limbs each with one bone, two bones, many bones. What happened to kill all the other formats?
    1
  61. LiFePo4 batteries are already available for car and bike starter batteries. They are solid state so likely what Dyson is using. Agree on the name. Dyson does the high value stuff in U.K. Manufacturing is comparatively low skilled.
    1
  62. If we really want to stop creating CO2 there is only one option. Like it or not nuclear is clean, safe and zero CO2. With companies like Moltex, Thorcon and Flibe the plants would be cheaper to build than coal and hugely cheaper to fuel and operate. They are of course being held back. The Left (who want climate change stopped via a socialist world government) do not want a solution because it crimps their plans for world domination. The Right who support the status quo want us to continue burning oil and coal. They lose if we go nuke.
    1
  63. Kirk Sorensen was a NASA engineer tasked with providing power for a moon base. Solar was useless because the lunar night lasts 14 days. Batteries won’t help too heavy. He rediscovered the Oak Ridge molten salt reactor experiment (MSRE). It would work in low or even zero gravity. Runs at high temperature (smaller) and would be launched with new fuel which is not highly radioactive. There are problems (as always) but not the stuff you’d expect. Check out his videos.
    1
  64. Joe Scott. Please get Ian Scot (presumably no relation) to explain how his Moltex Waste burner plant works. He’s on Titans of Nuclear. His plant in Canada is fully engineered and ready for construction. It’s expected on line by 2020. That’s really fast by nuke standards. The plant runs in the fast spectrum burning high level irradiated fuel from a PWR next door.
    1
  65. The nastiness of nuclear bombs was seriously played up by all governments. They wanted the populace to be scared so they'd support a huge military to keep them safe. Im not suggesting nukes are nice but governments really over played their hands. They also used power plants to make bomb fuel (UK's Magnox for example). Then they chose inherently risky power plant designs that cost a fortune and go pop even few years. It's no surprise that nuke power has a bad press. Some environmentalists want to use energy scarcity to force central control of all energy use. They don't say so but that sounds a lot like communism. It failed last time and however it's packaged will fail again.
    1
  66. Tesla happens to make cars but that are not a car company.
    1
  67. My (version of) god is better than your god. Prove I am wrong. It’s impossible to prove that something does not exist. Science says here’s an idea. Prove it’s correct. When the evidence stacks up we can say we better understand the issue.
    1
  68. Huge deposits of oil and gas were confirmed around 2010. Four years later, Putin annexed Crimea but did nothing about the oil deposits. He then fomented a civil war in the Eastern areas where yet more oil and gas has ben found. He's now tried to invade the whole country but he's stalled (or maybe just stopped) over the oil resource areas. Ukraine has existing oil and gas pipelines into Europe. Putin wants them to continue carrying Russian oil/gas at prices set by Putin. So he's invaded, flattened the cities, smashed the infrastructure and stolen the people to work in Russia. He has no intention of restoring the country. It's all about a gangster taking out a potential new competitor. That oil will stay in the ground until Putin's forces are fully thrown out.
    1
  69. The best Dr Who character has to be River Song. His wife.
    1
  70. We have the energy solution in fast spectrum molten salt reactors. They extract 99% of the energy vs just 4% in today’s plants. They happily burn existing high level waste leaving short life easily managed materials. Cost to build is cheaper than gas or coal so they’ll put both out of business solving the global warming problems.
    1
  71. LaPalma may well slide into the sea. But the inevitable tsunami will not be a fraction of what the pop scientists claim. The hill is simply not big enough.
    1
  72. How do we do manage the huge power surge going on and off every day?
    1
  73. The Medieval Warm Period AD 900 to AD 1300 was 2 degrees C above average. It was followed by the “Little Ice Age” AD 1350 to AD 1900 which was 2 degrees C below average and during Maunder Minimum even colder. We are currently comparing our temperature to 1870 which was 0.3 below average. We are now 0.5 degrees above 1870. So we are warming but we are still recovering from an extended cool period. And we are only just a touch above average. Question what caused the 400 years of medieval warm followed by 500 years of cool. These numbers are not explained and some even want to pretend the medieval warm never happened.
    1
  74. Sorenson made the point that many transuranics are very useful so chemical processing is needed. He's also points out that the chemical processes are easy to do in spite of them being radioactively hot. Carbon is used in the British AGR solid fuelled gas cooled rectors. These run with steam conditions of 565 degs C so the gas (and carbon) has to be a lot hotter. The graphite core is there for the life of the reactor. This http://www.formatex.info/energymaterialsbook/book/761-768.pdf suggests a beryllium liquid moderator instead of graphite.
    1
  75. Sadly there are so many rigid opinions Solar = good Nukes = bad. Explain molten salt and thorium to an anti nuke protestor and they wont listen. Explain it to a traditional nuke engine and all they can think is how its not what they are used to. A presenter from Atkins (different vid) said it would be at least 50 years before thorium comes on stream. Why so long?
    1
  76. The Sheerness munitions will blow upwards. Damage will be caused by falling debris and tidal wave. But don’t worry, the insurance industry will be fine. The small print always excludes acts of war.
    1
  77. The really hard part is finding somewhere with two lakes separated by a big drop. It's also pretty rough on the fish. UK has one but there are no other sites that can do the job.
    1
  78. Would the fuel cell membrane stop proton more easily than a electrons? I mean, one Proton is >1800 times more massive than one electron.
    1
  79. One of the many problems with PWRs is that radioactive Iodine and Caesium are both released in gaseous forms and both are toxic to life. A molten salt reactor cannot do this as the Iodine and Caesium will produce their own salt within the reactor core.
    1
  80. Israel irrigates huge areas with comparatively no water. USA farmers need to move to drip irrigation urgently.
    1
  81. When everyone has an autonomous car the market will be rammed full many times over. I suspect many will simply not let their cars out as the return won’t be worth the costs. (Insurance etc).
    1
  82. Your US buckets must be huge.
    1
  83. Pulling carbon from the atmosphere is all very well when it rally does contain too much CO2. However, what if the climate models are wrong and what if the planet is doing fine just as it is?
    1
  84. Don’t forget the disruption S curve. Capturing 50% of the market takes as long as the first 2%. Tesla has just passed the magic 2% and their tech is at least 5 years ahead of Big Auto.
    1
  85. Xenon is a rare gas unless you have a nuclear reactor that allows it to escape from the fuel. Molten salts are ideal as the gas just bubbles out. The short 1/2 life quickly decays and to have one of the stable isotopes.
    1
  86. 4th Gen nuclear (molten salts) will be super low cost and super safe and zero CO2 and low waste. What’s not to like? When they are cheaper than coal, there won’t be a point to burning it.
    1
  87. Thorium will only work in liquid fuelled reactor. It's a waste of time in solid fuel plant and why it was dropped when they were making solid fuel for bombs.
    1
  88. Sea level went up 80 metres. From what level? Was that from a low level caused by huge ice melts. If so why did it stop there?
    1
  89. But only when the sun shines.
    1
  90. EU is struggling to pay for their TGV high speed trains. Hyper loop would do a better job but not when they already have fast rail systems.
    1
  91. If it’s free you are the product.
    1
  92. My complaint about wind turbines is the 20% performance factor. That 100% capital cost is sat there 100% of the time but only doing useful stuff for 1/5 of the time. All those finite elements (especially copper) are sat there doing nothing for most of the time.
    1
  93. Moltex energy are using the same hot salt technology found in Solar Thermal power to follow the fluctuating load from renewables. They use the reactor to heat the thermal stores. Stored heat raises steam for turbines. More importantly, they burn high level spent nuclear fuel. The stuff they release has a half life of 30 years (easily managed) against 30,000 years with the current nuclear plants. Moltex are building a plant in Canada with plans to be making electricity by 2028. No new mining, zero CO2 and very low waste. The waste it does make is easily managed. Elysium has similar plans. They will clean up high level nuclear waste, dispose of nuclear bomb cores and they can even use the depleted uranium we have left over from making the bombs. No new fuel has to be mined and a considerable waste storage problem is solved.
    1
  94. You should have bought a squirrel. KB Rat Race.
    1
  95. Fusion will never be cheap and it’s also radioactive. Waste nuke reactor fuel only happens because PWRs cannot extract more than 4% of the fissile energy. Fast spectrum reactors like Moltex Waste Burner can extract 95 of the remaining 96%. The waste has a 1/2 life of 30 years vs 30,000 years for PWR used fuel. It’s intrinsically safe works at atmospheric pressure and cannot overheat even if the load (cooling) disconnected at full power.
    1
  96. If the tube is evacuated why does it need an aerodynamic nose and tail? The issue will be slowing down. There’s a lot of kinetic energy to remove and no air to absorb the heat. Passenger comfort? You will get pushed against seatbelts while accelerating or while decelerating. People won’t much like that.
    1
  97. Earth moves at something like 65,000mph around the sun. To get to the sun you have to drop most of that speed by flying the opposite way. Huge amount of fuel needed.
    1
  98. Because beaming microwaves down from space won’t burn out the ozone layer.
    1
  99. The Shuttle was a great idea but the actuality was an engineered bodge. The solid boosters were sort of reused but many parts got scrapped. They are also horribly polluting. The fuel tank was scrapped on every flight. The orbiter was so untrustworthy, that it had to be pretty much rebuilt after every flight.
    1
  100. Charles Okonkwo Nuclear waste is microscopic compared to the waste created by all other options including renewables. But Moltex Energy are building a plant that will be fuelled by high level nuclear waste. Instead of using just 3% of the available energy, Moltex will extract 99%. That means 30x less waste and what they do create has a 30 year 1/2 life instead of a 30,000 year 1/2 life.
    1
  101. Charles Okonkwo Fukushima happened because light water reactors are fundamentally hazardous. The molten salts have no pressure vessel and as the fuel is molten they cannot melt down. If the reactor gets too hot the salt expands and the traction slows. The worst case would have the reactor sitting there perfectly harmlessly until the fuel runs out. Safety sorted Waste sorted Cost - cheaper than coal.
    1
  102. Charles Okonkwo We absolutely do have a solution to high level nuke waste. Convert it to a salt and burn it in a molten salt reactor. The conversion is a simple chemical process. The reactors are intrinsically safe.
    1
  103. Corey Micallef You listed waste management solutions but the best of all is the Moltex SSR waste burner fast reactor.
    1
  104. marker902 Except the waste product is not weapons grade uranium. Waste burners are fast reactors that burn the waste produced by ordinary PWRs like Wd have all over the place. Thorium reactors breed U233 within the reactor then move it to the core to make more energy. The fuel is 99% used against just 3% for a PWR. U233 is radioactive and unstable. It would fry the bomb and anyone trying to build/operate it. Plutonium is produced when uranium is burnt but unlike solid fuel reactors where removal can be exactly timed, the Pu 239 in a molten salt is mixed up with all the other isotopes. Pu240 is a great bomb poison and it’s hugely costly to separate. Last of all countries that already have nuke bombs would not be using molten salts to make more. They are just rubbish for that job and they already have bomb making plants.
    1
  105. Claudio Ricardo Diaz Moltex has a fully engineered molten salt reactor for burning high level nuclear waste. It’s expected on line by 2028 in Canada. Progress is limited purely by the pace of regulatory processes. That’s slow to normal people but uber fast by nuclear standards.
    1
  106. Alain Duchesneau Ditto Moltex who will be burning nuclear waste in a fast spectrum molten salt reactor.
    1
  107. Dildo Shwagins PWRs use just 3% of the energy available in the fuel. That waste has a 1/2 life of 30,000 years. Molten salts including the Moltex waste burner will extract 99% of the available energy. That’s 30 times less waste for the same power output. Furthermore the waste has a 1/2 life of 30 years. That’s easily engineered.
    1
  108. marker902 Nothing is impossible but U233 is highly radioactive. It would fry the operators and the bomb’s own electronics. Not to mention it’s radiation signature visible from space. It’s also unstable and unlikely to fission correctly. In a thorium molten salt reactor the U233 is never removed from the reactor nuclear island. It’s just moved across from the blanket to the core.
    1
  109. Barefoot Moltex are doing that with a peaker nuke plant. The reactor heats molten salt thermal stores. 1000MW of reactor drives up to 3000MW of steam turbines making power when it’s needed and none when it’s not needed. There is no untested engineering.
    1
  110. We populations on earth who live with high background radiation. Ramsar Iran for example. How do they compare on the cancer heart disease lines compared to most of us.
    1
  111. JR Harryman biking with a passenger or droning along freeways sucks. Sorry but it just does. Changing direction mid bend, feeling the front wheel float on acceleration, getting air over a bumpy bridge are all things you can’t get from a car. Or you simply don’t notice.
    1
  112. EloquentTroll Singapore sounds a good bet. Until recently, Hong Kong would be the other bet. London could do it but not with the current mayor the lobby and narrow minded TfL who won’t think beyond busses and tubes.
    1
  113. Rene Dekker they are a big win at traffic lights and islands. Humans dither and faff and leave excessive space when waiting. The effect is only a fraction can get through. Many towns will do away with lights because cars can cooperate and allow joining streams to merge. .
    1
  114. Christopher Schroeder Inner city driving will be banned. Autocars wil use park and ride lots as buses do today. But it will be 24 hours. Then where does the city bus fit in? When Autocars are working efficiently the busses won’t offer any benefits.
    1
  115. MattOGormanSmith Arabian Princes won’t be a problem because nobody will be buying their oil. If the molten salt nukes are ever allowed to happen coal will collapse and oil will be a pure materials resource. Cheap bulk energy is needed for industry, recycling, water desalination, ammonia production, cement plants. All things were wind and solar power are not appropriate.
    1
  116. In five years time, SpaceX will have switched to ethanol thrusters. Their booster rockets are already re-usable. Their current trials and tribulations with Starship show just how hard it is to re-use the main rocket.
    1
  117. Don’t forget the weight of hydrogen fuel tanks. Containing all that pressure needs heavy tanks. There is also the refill time at the fuel station. You can fill the car fast but the pump needs 30 minutes to recover so don’t arrive just after another driver has filled up. The serious biggie is containment. Hydrogen leaks through plastics and makes metals brittle. Hydrogen embrittlement will happen to steel or aluminium and even exotics like titanium. Imagine this at your truck stop hydrogen store. https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-hydrogen-embrittlement
    1
  118. Higgs field destroys the universe. Is that what kicked off the Big Bang?
    1