Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking

Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 03:41 PM
 
A news story from my home state. Posting this because I can't see how its legally binding for parents to sign away their children's rights for life. I realize children have limited rights compared to adults, but my logic would conclude the best the parents could offer is the children's silence until they become legal adults. I'm also curious what kind of legal repercussions there'd be if one breaks his silence later down the line.

Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking | Environment | The Guardian
Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.

Gag orders – on adults – are typical in settlements reached between oil and gas operators and residents in the heart of shale gas boom in Pennsylvania. But the company lawyer's insistence on extending the lifetime gag order to the Hallowichs' children gave even the judge pause, according to the court documents.
I don't believe it clarifies why he went along with it.


During the proceedings, the attorney representing Range Resources, James Swetz, reaffirmed the company sought the gag order on the children. "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it," he told the court.

...

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette. He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.
I'd be curious to see whether their stance would change if a news crew tried to interview them.


As a side note, how much do things suck for the energy industry? Fracking is a relatively newer process for extracting gas and already we're seeing possible problems and environmental impacts from it as its become more widespread. They just can't catch a break. Well since we all need energy, neither can we.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
As a side note, how much do things suck for the energy industry? Fracking is a relatively newer process for extracting gas and already we're seeing possible problems and environmental impacts from it as its become more widespread. They just can't catch a break. Well since we all need energy, neither can we.
Solar. Nuclear. Thermal. All much better options which are underutilized because of the corporations that run the government.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by boy8cookie View Post
Solar. Nuclear. Thermal. All much better options which are underutilized because of the corporations that run the government.
The more I've learned about nuclear energy, the more pissed off I am that everyone is so damn terrified of it. It's unbelievably efficient and green compared to coal, but because there have been a couple of plant meltdowns in the past century, everyone's convinced it's an untouchable.

New nuclear power plants could also be used for high-temperature electrolysis to recharge hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles like the Honda Clarity, which is a much better option than hybrid cars that still exhaust damaging gasses into the atmosphere.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The more I've learned about nuclear energy, the more pissed off I am that everyone is so damn terrified of it. It's unbelievably efficient and green compared to coal, but because there have been a couple of plant meltdowns in the past century, everyone's convinced it's an untouchable.
Let's be honest, what happened at Fukushima is a fringe freak double whammy of nature and Chernobyl was downright negligence. Nuclear energy is the only viable option for the times to come seeing that renewable sources, while awesome, just aren't going to power the United States. Subsidize solar and put panels on every useless flat roof of every Target et al, and build modern nuclear plants.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Let's be honest, what happened at Fukushima is a fringe freak double whammy of nature ...
Much of Japan lies between two continental plates, and tsunamis and earthquakes are not disasters which strike independently. If you build nuclear power plants on top of continental folds, you're just asking for disaster, Fukushima was not unexpected.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 08:44 PM
 
Those conditions may be the norm for Japan, but my point was the largest fears about nuclear power exist because of fringe outliers in an otherwise very reliable and safe form of power.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2013, 11:03 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Those conditions may be the norm for Japan, but my point was the largest fears about nuclear power exist because of fringe outliers in an otherwise very reliable and safe form of power.
"It couldn't happen here" is certainly an excellent basis for safety assessment.

Three Mile Island was just a freak outlier as well, with a lucky just-in-time ending.

Would the US attitude be different if a twenty-mile radius around Harrisburg were now uninhabitable?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Those conditions may be the norm for Japan, but my point was the largest fears about nuclear power exist because of fringe outliers in an otherwise very reliable and safe form of power.
Safety is about expectation values and not about probabilities: due to the number of atomic power plants, there will eventually be a serious accident, no matter how safe they are. Unlike conventional power plants, each serious accident usually has catastrophic consequences for the vicinity of the nuclear plant, but may pose significant risks thousands of kilometers away. Just imagine the wind had blown in a different direction, toward the Tokyo metropolitan area on 11 March, 2011.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 08:57 AM
 
Google "contracts with children"
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 10:33 AM
 
I, uh, won't somebody think of the children?!

(I'd ask for the energy discussion to go into another thread, but I suppose we're a little to far down that hole at this point)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Much of Japan lies between two continental plates, and tsunamis and earthquakes are not disasters which strike independently. If you build nuclear power plants on top of continental folds, you're just asking for disaster, Fukushima was not unexpected.
This is the sole reason I abandoned my plans of retiring there - the country is a ticking time bomb. Look at the plates, look at Mount Fuji... the math adds up, sadly. Fer crying outloud, no wonder there are onsen everywhere.

but OT, how can you impose a lifelong ban on a minor. When he/she comes of age, he/she can do whatever he/she wants. Whatever, I do what I want. He/she.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Let's be honest, what happened at Fukushima is a fringe freak double whammy of nature and Chernobyl was downright negligence. Nuclear energy is the only viable option for the times to come seeing that renewable sources, while awesome, just aren't going to power the United States. Subsidize solar and put panels on every useless flat roof of every Target et al, and build modern nuclear plants.
Not only that, but nuclear fuel can be re-enriched and recycled. Consumed fuel rods can be used in other applications because of how heavy they are. Nuclear plants output STEAM into the air; hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars exhaust nothing but pure water.

Pointing at a grand total of two plant meltdowns in history and using that as a reason to be completely terrified of nuclear power as a viable replacement for fossil fuels is just alarmist, media-fueled FUD.

A meltdown happened in a communist country where maintenance was poor, employees didn't know what they were doing, and there were no safety measures in place! This means that a meltdown is imminent at every plant on Earth, and all of them will have an outcome like Chernobyl!

A meltdown happened after a major earthquake in the direct vicinity of the plant! This means that every plant on Earth is susceptible to failing due to earthquake and we must shut them all down!

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:24 PM
 
Three Mile Island was neither a communist country nor on a fault line.

Incidentally, how many nuclear power plants are near fault lines within the US?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:32 PM
 
Three Mile Island wasn't a meltdown.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:44 PM
 
Three MIle Island was blown way out of proportion due to the already fever pitch hysteria related to nuclear energy. The same hysteria ensures that we have had to operate on old and outdated power-plant designs instead of building much newer and safer ones. How many Nuclear Power plants have produced a devastating meltdown? Two, two out of over 400 operating today. How much radiation has been leaked into the atmosphere by the simple process of strip mining coal out of the ground?

But by all means, everyone who is scurred of nuclear power continue to spread that fear until our utter reliance on fossil fuels completely screws us. The poisoning of our environment through the use of fossil fuels is nice and low-profile, but two utter failures of an otherwise rock solid source of power have absolutely ruined any chance of weening ourselves off of coal, oil, and natural gas. I would rather live near a modern nuclear plant than one that burns natural gas and releases tons of CO2 and Ammonia into the air.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:51 PM
 
To be fair, no one really had any idea of what the situation was at the time, including the people in charge.

I have to hand it to Carter on this one. That the plant could blow up when he was visiting was considered a real possibility, and he felt it was worth it to take the risk.

Of course, I was too young at the time to realize this and only recall the SNL routine where the visit makes Carter (Dan Akroyd) 50 feet tall.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:56 PM
 
Also, Fukushima wasn't just because of the 9.0 earthquake, but also the massive tsunami that walloped the backup generators. How many places in the US are by a fault line, in danger of 9.0 earthquakes AND massive tsunamis?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Three Mile Island wasn't a meltdown.
Just barely not.

Totally safe; everybody relax.

Couldn't happen here.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 07:23 PM
 
It's far more likely to happen because we won't update the technology.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's far more likely to happen because we won't update the technology.
Stop making sense, people who fear nuclear energy don't listen to reason.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 03:15 AM
 
Dismiss it all you want. The point is not that it is extremely unlikely to happen, and may become even less likely, the point is that if humans are involved, it WILL happen eventually, and the consequences are rather devastating when it does.

We couldn't buy locally grown mushrooms for over a decade after Chernobyl, before radioactivity levels finally dropped below the legal maximum, and we're pretty damn far away, and it wasn't our technology to keep updated.

That shit ain't funny.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 04:45 AM
 
Chernobyl was caused by communists, not humans.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
but OT, how can you impose a lifelong ban on a minor. When he/she comes of age, he/she can do whatever he/she wants. Whatever, I do what I want. He/she.
Hey, someone tried.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 11:42 AM
 
Yeah sorry for the derail buddy.

I think its completely ridiculous to get paid to silence your kids. If my kids felt strongly enough about something I would encourage them, not receive payment to silence them.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Yeah sorry for the derail buddy.
Well its my fault for the grey text.

Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I think its completely ridiculous to get paid to silence your kids. If my kids felt strongly enough about something I would encourage them, not receive payment to silence them.
Well I'm not even to the point where I consider the parents decision yet. I'm just don't understand how its possible legally.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Dismiss it all you want. The point is not that it is extremely unlikely to happen, and may become even less likely, the point is that if humans are involved, it WILL happen eventually, and the consequences are rather devastating when it does.

We couldn't buy locally grown mushrooms for over a decade after Chernobyl, before radioactivity levels finally dropped below the legal maximum, and we're pretty damn far away, and it wasn't our technology to keep updated.

That shit ain't funny.
Comparing the safety of Chernobyl to modern reactors in developed countries is like comparing air travel from the 1960s to today. Chernobyl was a perfect storm of old technology and utter baffling negligence, all wrapped up in a nice package of Soviet secrecy. There have been all manner of powerplant disasters, some of the largest ones being failures of hydroelectric dams that killed tens of thousands, but no, only nuclear should be feared because of one isolated incident 30 years ago in Soviet controlled Ukraine. Three MIle Island is a blip on the radar compared to the Deepwater Horizon spill, in every conceivable use of the word disaster, but the word "radiation" is scary so we might as well continue full-bore with our thirst for fossil fuels.

I also notice no-one has said peep about nuclear hysteria actually having the opposite effect and forcing us to use outdated (more dangerous) Nuclear Plants because we are to terrified to build newer proper ones.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 11:53 AM
 
I kind of see a parallel between nuclear power and flying on airplanes. They tell you flying on a plane is statistically safer than being in a car, but my problem is that when things go wrong on a plane you are fuuuuuuuuuuuucked.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I kind of see a parallel between nuclear power and flying on airplanes. They tell you flying on a plane is statistically safer than being in a car, but my problem is that when things go wrong on a plane you are fuuuuuuuuuuuucked.
They are comparable in ways, especially since both have undergone radical changes throughout their respective technologies over the years, and since some people are terrified of them for no good reason.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
They are comparable in ways, especially since both have undergone radical changes throughout their respective technologies over the years, and since some people are terrified of them for no good reason.
What radical changes have planes undergone? Speed and price don't seem to have changed much since I was a kid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What radical changes have planes undergone? Speed and price don't seem to have changed much since I was a kid.
This?
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2013, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Comparing the safety of Chernobyl to modern reactors in developed countries is like comparing air travel from the 1960s to today. Chernobyl was a perfect storm of old technology and utter baffling negligence, all wrapped up in a nice package of Soviet secrecy. There have been all manner of powerplant disasters, some of the largest ones being failures of hydroelectric dams that killed tens of thousands, but no, only nuclear should be feared because of one isolated incident 30 years ago in Soviet controlled Ukraine. Three MIle Island is a blip on the radar compared to the Deepwater Horizon spill, in every conceivable use of the word disaster, but the word "radiation" is scary so we might as well continue full-bore with our thirst for fossil fuels.

I also notice no-one has said peep about nuclear hysteria actually having the opposite effect and forcing us to use outdated (more dangerous) Nuclear Plants because we are to terrified to build newer proper ones.
I'd post my own response but you pretty much nailed it.

The reason why Three Mile Island DIDN'T turn into an actual reactor meltdown was BECAUSE we'd learned so much about putting safeguards in place to protect nuclear plants in the United States from a Chernobyl-like disaster.

And now, because people are unnecessarily horrified at the thought of building new plants (because people like buying into whatever the media tells them), we're using outdated plants rather than building newer, safer, more efficient ones that can fulfill additional needs (like the ability to recharge hydrogen fuel cells en masse).

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What radical changes have planes undergone? Speed and price don't seem to have changed much since I was a kid.
A lot of planes in the air today are the same physical planes that have been around for 25 years. The safety standards, however, are not the same as they were 25 years ago. Things that could have flown under the radar, so to speak (loal) in the 60s or 70s are now considered serious enough to ground an aircraft until they are resolved.

I realize that SH in particular just likes being an ornery disagreeable troll, but the vitriolic vomit he spews is what some people heartily subscribe to. It's unfortunate. Our reliance on fossil fuels could be significantly reduced if people weren't so terrified of technology because of a disaster that happened before they were born.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The reason why Three Mile Island DIDN'T turn into an actual reactor meltdown was BECAUSE we'd learned so much about putting safeguards in place to protect nuclear plants in the United States from a Chernobyl-like disaster.
You need to read up on what happened. There was an actual meltdown, and the only reason the container didn't blow the way it did in Fukushima was due to a shift change, and the new shift realizing as they took over that something was amiss. They just BARELY managed to get new coolant in there just in time to keep the vessel from blowing up (actually, there WAS a hydrogen explosion, but it stayed barely within the rated pressure tolerance for the containment vessel. So maybe just sheer luck, after all).

Also, Three Mile Island was seven years before Chrnobyl.

And now, because people are unnecessarily horrified at the thought of building new plants (because people like buying into whatever the media tells them), we're using outdated plants rather than building newer, safer, more efficient ones that can fulfill additional needs (like the ability to recharge hydrogen fuel cells en masse).
I suppose the newer ones will be less prone to blowing up, but as far as safety is concerned, again, it's not a question of "if" but a question of "when" as long as humans or technology are involved.

And as somebody mentioned, the consequences here are dire. Could you even IMAGINE being downwind six THOUSAND miles and not being able to buy locally-sourced milk for years and years, and not being able to pick mushrooms in the woods for over a decade, as cancer rates among those living downwind with you are rising (that study found statistically relevant evidence for Three Mile Island, where we know "nothing even happened".

Also, Three Mile Island cost an estimated BILLION dollars in cleanup.


I realize that SH in particular just likes being an ornery disagreeable troll, but the vitriolic vomit he spews is what some people heartily subscribe to. It's unfortunate.
Ah. I'm being ornery and vitriolic. In this thread.

You've got your miserable head so far up your ass that you're basing your entire response to my postings on imagined content. That's not even ad hominem. That's ad fantasium.

Our reliance on fossil fuels could be significantly reduced if people weren't so terrified of technology because of a disaster that happened before they were born.
Before YOU were born, kid.

Those of us who were around know EXACTLY why we're terrified of that technology. Because if something happens, the consequences will be felt by people on other continents, and eaten by those born after we've died.

Again: would the US attitude be any different if a twenty mile radius around Harrisburg were now uninhabitable for the next thirty years?

If the explosion in the containment vessel at Harrisburg had exceeded maximum pressure (which it just barely didn't), and the wind had been blowing towards New York? And thousands of women born after or around the accident had to fight breast cancer who might never have needed to?

If, at Fukushima, the wind hadn't been blowing offshore, but south towards the 20-million metropolis Tokyo? Ah no, probably not. Couldn't happen here (except it has).


The funny thing is that I don't even really see an alternative. Renewable energies aren't continuous enough to guarantee power when we need it, and coal power plants (the main alternative here) cannot be simply turned down or shut off when not needed, so you're effectively wasting energy when, say wind is at peak.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 11:22 AM
 
Blerghl blarghl herp derp.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 12:14 PM
 
The future of nuclear energy are Thorium reactors.

Can't melt down, can't be weaponized, cheaper fuel, better scalability etc...
It's a shame that the US government is not interested to develop this technology. The main reason to abandon it in the 60ies was that it wouldn't produce weaponizable material. And since the US wanted nukes, well, there.

With sufficient funding, commercial Thorium reactors could be developed in 5 years, and be ready for mass production / introduction in 10. Alas, almost nobody is working on it.

The Energy From Thorium Foundation The Energy From Thorium Foundation

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Blerghl blarghl herp derp.
Get the **** off my back and take it up with your therapist.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The future of nuclear energy are Thorium reactors.

Can't melt down, can't be weaponized, cheaper fuel, better scalability etc...
It's a shame that the US government is not interested to develop this technology. The main reason to abandon it in the 60ies was that it wouldn't produce weaponizable material. And since the US wanted nukes, well, there.

With sufficient funding, commercial Thorium reactors could be developed in 5 years, and be ready for mass production / introduction in 10. Alas, almost nobody is working on it.

The Energy From Thorium Foundation The Energy From Thorium Foundation
I hadn't heard about this, so I did some specifically counter-googling, but from what it looks like:

Thorium itself may not be weaponizable, but traditional fissile material is still required to start the reaction. In addition, a Thorium reactor can be easily adapted to produce plutonium at a purity well above traditional weaponized plutonium.

Cheaper fuel maybe, but the initial investment into the technology is an order of magnitude higher than what was necessary for the current technology. Which is why no government is funding it at the moment.

The reactor itself can't melt down, but the pre- and post-processing involves high energies and lots of nasty materials, so the hazard shifts to other areas.

Your five to ten years look more like fifty to seventy, for the most-favoured type of thorium reactor, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

The current pipe dream fantasized about as a follow-up technology is fusion reactors, with untold billions having been pumped into development already.

This, however, as I say, from a quick counter-search, and gleaned mostly from this single source:
Don't believe thorium nuclear reactor hype | Independent Australia
which, admittedly, apparently has an agenda, but which seems to me to make solid arguments, at least on cursory inspection.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Get the **** off my back and take it up with your therapist.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 03:31 PM
 
We do need primary power sources (sources that can be turned on at any time). Wind and solar are secondary sources, they work when they want to. Wind has been profitable even without subsidies for perhaps a decade, and solar recently became profitable. Continued subsidies accelerate the installation rate.

Fossil fuel use is accelerating global warming; CO2 levels set new records every year. ATM it's contributing to ocean rise at 1" (2.5 cm) per decade, and the rate is expected to increase. This is already increasing the odds of mega storms, and will have huge consequences in the decades ahead. We'll eventually lose much of Florida, along with some island nations. Even worse, the simulations show huge inertia built into the system. And warming erases snowpacks. Expect water costs to keep going up during summers, and in countries that simply can't source enough water, expect political instability.

We *have* to develop non-carbon power sources. As I see it, the need for primary sources can be met by:
• Revolutionary battery development. The patents on large-scale NiMH batteries expire in 2015. This would allow secondary power sources to cover everything.
• Major investment in infrastructure. Long-distance high volt DC lines allow power transfer up to ~4,000 mi (6,400 km). The wind is always blowing somewhere, and during the day, there is direct sunlight on panels somewhere.
• Advanced fission deployment. The most promising is probably the small modular reactor. Manufacturers sell/lease a compact sealed reactor. A power plant buys/leases/rents as many modules as needed. When the fuel runs out, return unopened to manufacturer. No spent fuel storage on site, no single large reactor to potentially fail, and advanced design needs no active cooling when unused. Economics of scale drop the reactor prices - current reactors are all custom-built.
• Fusion tokamak development. It's a lot closer than it used to be (though it isn't completely radiation-free). The ITER tokamak in France remains on schedule to activate in 2020, designed capacity 450 MW. It could be retrofitted later for actual power generation - it's currently a test reactor only.
• Fusion inertial confinement. The NIF has not yet achieved ignition (more power output than input) but:
It was also noted that there is unanimity among the expert review committees on NIF’s potential to achieve ignition.
• Fusion (other) development. I periodically check the Polywell article. It's the closest thing to a Mr. Fusion being developed. The US Navy keeps the results mostly secret, and keeps the funding going. It appears they're meeting milestones.

In the meantime, perhaps we should just build nuclear reactors in uninhabited locations. Isolate to reduce the risks. We've historically built power plants near the users, because it was economic.

On-topic response: kids can't be bound by contracts. The parents got the settlement, and have control of the kids until adulthood. Afterwards, they can say what they want to, and assuming the parents aren't spendthrifts, the kids will inherit the money too. In practical terms, the settlement is less a gag order than a transfer-to-the-future order. Like until after they've finished extracting all that oil.
( Last edited by reader50; Aug 10, 2013 at 09:50 PM. Reason: CO2, not CO.)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Cheaper fuel maybe, but the initial investment into the technology is an order of magnitude higher than what was necessary for the current technology. Which is why no government is funding it at the moment.
Well, look at the billions of $$$ that the US government is pouring into "renewable" energy, most of which will never pay off or pan out. If only half that money was diverted to research for Thorium, there could be great progress made fast.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Your five to ten years look more like fifty to seventy, for the most-favoured type of thorium reactor, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
Yes and no, it really depends how serious the US would get about it.

If the government made this a priority like the Manhattan Project, it could be done in 5-10 years. Privately funded, it will probably never happen. It needs a government to put full force and support behind it.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2013, 05:53 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2013, 10:36 PM
 
Of course not. The technology has been around for decades. The only thing that changed is the oil price, making it economic today.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Of course not. The technology has been around for decades. The only thing that changed is the oil price, making it economic today.
I'll give you a quote from a geologist who has been working in big oil for nearly 50 years (my old man) :

First of all the fracking of wells to stimulate production is not a new technology. I sat a well in Libya in 1970 where the "tight" low permeability reservoir was stimulated by fracking.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I said relatively new. The tech has existed for decades but it hasn't become widespread (at least in the US) until recently.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 02:43 AM
 
We've been using a fuel cell to power say ~90% of my garage/shop for nearly 6 months now and it's been fantastic. By the end of the year we'll be converting over for home use as well. That tech is here, and safe, we just need to mass produce it and sell it, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a shareholder in one of the main companies developing it either!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 03:16 AM
 
Shaddim, is yours natural gas based, or hydrogen?

Fuel cells are so promising from an efficiency standpoint, but they need high purity hydrogen, or get tripped up over some other roadblock. It seems like a tech that never arrives. I'd be interested if there are any practical fuel cell generators on the market.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2013, 04:07 AM
 
It extracts hydrogen from natural gas. We have a natural gas deposit not far from our house, maybe 1/4 mile, and we're looking into extracting it for our own use. It isn't a very large one, based on the tests, but it's plenty for us.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2