markmassie

Exactly. There are two major questions: either the models are right or they are wrong, and either we successfully curb emissions on a very large scale (action) or we do not (inaction). This gives us four outcomes:

1. Models are Right + Action = huge spending on energy but we save the planet

2. Models are wrong + Action = huge spending on energy that otherwise would be spent on defense, etc. but we are left with a renewable energy infrastructure.

3. Models are wrong + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it.

4. Models are right + inaction = little money spent on new power sources, left with fossil fuel-based infrastructure. When fossil fuels run out in 100-200 years, have to build renewable infrastructure to replace it. Also, dramatic weather changes, widespread famine, etc.

Does inaction make sense even if the models are wrong?

When was this filed?

The Half Keyboard allows you to type with one hand OR use it as a second keyboard in addition to your main, full-sized keyboard.

http://matias.ca/halfkeyboard/

That was really good at giving some perspective. I actually know the feelings expressed about his trip to Russia, although I am not Russian. (I'm from West Virginia.)

Except if the flawed software is a company's core product, the company might fail.

As we all know, corporations are people, my friend.

That's one of the major problems with thorium. It is much more abundant than uranium, but uranium is mined from uranium-dense deposits. There are no equivalent thorium-rich deposits. Instead, thorium is sprinkled across the Earth's surface. So one has to sift through more earth to mine thorium than it takes to mine an equivalent amount of uranium, which is an often overlooked environmental disadvantage of the thorium cycle.

"The company has been experimenting with small bits of thorium, creating a laser that heats water, produces steam and powers a mini turbine." This is the only line in the article about how it works and it doesn't make any sense. It certainly isn't a nuclear reactor. If they meant that thorium is used in the laser, what powers the laser?

The company website (http://www.laserpowersystems.com) certainly doesn't add any credibility.

Nuclear engineer here.

The thorium fuel cycle has obvious advantages, but it takes so long to transition from uranium to a pure thorium cycle that I doubt I will see it happen in my lifetime.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about thorium. It isn't thorium that makes LFTR so great, it is type of reactor that makes all the difference. Molten salt reactors can run on any fissile material. The only advantage of using thorium over uranium in an MSR is in the fuel cycle.

(Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a startup (http://transatomicpower.com) that is designing a molten salt reactor to burn spent fuel.)

Nuclear reactor startup (http://transatomicpower.com) designing a molten salt reactor to turn nuclear waste into clean energy at prices competitive with natural gas.