Thorium - a technological game-changer?

[RenewableCandy]

Nope, I can see the logic behind believing there's going to be a population crash and yet still going ahead with TT-type or other community projects.

Firstly, population crash won't happen everywhere evenly: some places will be spared, some badly hit. I believe my place will be spared, in fact we all do because that's how our brains are wired!

Secondly, humans are social animals and we know, even though economists are always telling us otherwise, that teaming-up increases our chances of survival whether in present-day ordinary life or in extremis.

[Little John]

Even shorter summary:

We either crash or we burn.

Given that I am both an optimist and also am rather fond of both humans and rest of life on earth, I naturally hope we crash.

Whilst I can see the logic of your position, I find this attitude on the future (e.g. that civilsation will collapse) an odd combination with the happy clappy Transition Town stuff about how if we all do our little bit we can change the world.

I would have thought that with such a stark, bleak view of the future the survivalism/extreme preppism is the only logical conclusion of your deeply negative outlook.

It is indeed an odd combination with the happy-clappy Transition Town stuff. Which is why I do not subscribe to the happy-clappy Transition town stuff.

"Transition-Townism" is, for the most part, little more than a self-congratulatory, self indulgent, smug, middle-class wankathon. There are some authentic individuals in it to be sure. But, as a "movement," it's bollocks in my opinion

And yes you're right, survivalism/extreme prepping is the logical conclusion of my position. The problem though, is timing. The greater likelihood is that things will start to get pretty tight, but not in the sense we get societal collapse, over the course of my lifetime (I'm 48.). It becomes far more likely that there could be at least a partial societal collapse in my kid's lifetime. All the way through this journey, there is alway the outside possibility that a few of the big players decide to throw off a few fireworks and close up the shop early, in which case, all bets are off the table.

In the context of all of the above uncertainty, it's extremely difficult to do anything that you could guarantee would not, the medium term, be counter productive in terms of serving one's interest. There are, of course, the obvious things relating to paying down debt, living frugally and saving as much as possible. But, beyond that, it's anyone's guess as to the right course of action to take. I would, if I could, buy some land and live on it in a partially self-sufficient manner. However, as i am sure you will be aware, in this country, that would take a kings ransom to achieve and I don't posses a king's ransom.

[biffvernon]

the happy clappy Transition Town stuff

Dunno what Transition Town you're in but my lot are a right load of doomsters.

[JohnB]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of happy clappiness, if you like that sort of thing, and a lot of people in the Transition movement do seem to only get that far. But the concept of Transition, and the serious use of permaculture, which is where the idea came from, is something that could be very powerful.

[Little John]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of happy clappiness, if you like that sort of thing, and a lot of people in the Transition movement do seem to only get that far. But the concept of Transition, and the serious use of permaculture, which is where the idea came from, is something that could be very powerful.

Oh, I've nothing against happy clappism. My problem arises when people of such a persuasion start going round smugly telling everyone else that they need to follow their example, all the while blithely oblivious (or, more likely, wantonly oblivious) to the fact that what they are doing is neither scalable nor is it affordable for the majority of ordinary urbanized citizen who are just only managing to keep afloat economically.

A classic example is the kind of crap spouted by the likes of Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall or Jamie Oliver wanking on about how we all need to eat organic chickens because they taste soooo much better and they have led a better life. All true of course. However, what these jokers fail to mention is that if everyone went over to organic chickens there would not be enough to go round due to the less "efficient" methods of rearing and so the price of your average organic chicken would skyrocket. In other words, the only reason that those who currently eat organic chickens can afford to do so is precisely because most people don't eat them.

[UndercoverElephant]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of happy clappiness, if you like that sort of thing, and a lot of people in the Transition movement do seem to only get that far. But the concept of Transition, and the serious use of permaculture, which is where the idea came from, is something that could be very powerful.

Oh, I've nothing against happy clappism. My problem arises when people of such a persuasion start going round smugly telling everyone else that they need to follow their example, all the while blithely oblivious (or, more likely, wantonly oblivious) to the fact that what they are doing is neither scalable nor is it affordable for the majority of ordinary urbanized citizen who are just only managing to keep afloat economically.

A classic example is the kind of crap spouted by the likes of Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall or Jamie Oliver wanking on about how we all need to eat organic chickens because they taste soooo much better and they have led a better life. All true of course. However, what these jokers fail to mention is that if everyone went over to organic chickens there would not be enough to go round due to the less "efficient" methods of rearing and so the price of your average organic chicken would skyrocket. In other words, the only reason that those who currently eat organic chickens can afford to do so is precisely because most people don't eat them.

Yes.

And as for TT movement in particular...

Brighton TT imploded in style. Too many cooks! Total disaster.

On the other hand, we have a Green council and a Green MP. What is the purpose of having a TT organisation when your home city is already being run by the Green party? Aren't they supposed to be achieving the same thing?

Not that much has changed.

[Little John]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of happy clappiness, if you like that sort of thing, and a lot of people in the Transition movement do seem to only get that far. But the concept of Transition, and the serious use of permaculture, which is where the idea came from, is something that could be very powerful.

Oh, I've nothing against happy clappism. My problem arises when people of such a persuasion start going round smugly telling everyone else that they need to follow their example, all the while blithely oblivious (or, more likely, wantonly oblivious) to the fact that what they are doing is neither scalable nor is it affordable for the majority of ordinary urbanized citizen who are just only managing to keep afloat economically.

A classic example is the kind of crap spouted by the likes of Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall or Jamie Oliver wanking on about how we all need to eat organic chickens because they taste soooo much better and they have led a better life. All true of course. However, what these jokers fail to mention is that if everyone went over to organic chickens there would not be enough to go round due to the less "efficient" methods of rearing and so the price of your average organic chicken would skyrocket. In other words, the only reason that those who currently eat organic chickens can afford to do so is precisely because most people don't eat them.

Yes.

And as for TT movement in particular...

Brighton TT imploded in style. Too many cooks! Total disaster.

On the other hand, we have a Green council and a Green MP. What is the purpose of having a TT organisation when your home city is already being run by the Green party? Aren't they supposed to be achieving the same thing?

Not that much has changed.

Sad to say, UE, not much can change. There are too many of us and we have traveled the road of technological dependence and convoluted, last-minute supply-chains too far now to be able to back out of the corner we have placed ourselves in.

God help our kids and grandkids.....

[biffvernon]

A classic example is the kind of crap spouted by the likes of Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall or Jamie Oliver wanking on about how we all need to eat organic chickens because they taste soooo much better and they have led a better life. All true of course. However, what these jokers fail to mention is that if everyone went over to organic chickens there would not be enough to go round due to the less "efficient" methods of rearing and so the price of your average organic chicken would skyrocket. In other words, the only reason that those who currently eat organic chickens can afford to do so is precisely because most people don't eat them.

Actually, what they have repeatedly said is that we should eat better meat but less meat. That fixes the issue you raised.

[Little John]

A classic example is the kind of crap spouted by the likes of Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall or Jamie Oliver wanking on about how we all need to eat organic chickens because they taste soooo much better and they have led a better life. All true of course. However, what these jokers fail to mention is that if everyone went over to organic chickens there would not be enough to go round due to the less "efficient" methods of rearing and so the price of your average organic chicken would skyrocket. In other words, the only reason that those who currently eat organic chickens can afford to do so is precisely because most people don't eat them.

Actually, what they have repeatedly said is that we should eat better meat but less meat. That fixes the issue you raised.

True enough. However, that is already happening, I would wager. Not because of a move to higher-quality/lower-quantity meat. But, rather, because of a move to same or lower quality/lower quantity meat.

A lot of people I know can't even afford the mass-produced shit anymore, never mind the good stuff.

[biffvernon]

I'm not a vegetarian but I'm quite happy to eat meat only occasionally, maybe once a week, and when I do I make sure the quality is good. So I'd rather pay twice the price and eat it a seventh as often. That makes it affordable.

[ujoni08]

That's what I do too, Biff. Only buy a very small quantity (= one meal)once a week from the farmer's market. SWMBO is a vegetarian.

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... hypothesis

For nearly 25 years now, the idea that it might be possible to extract unlimited amounts of energy from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom at low temperatures has been pretty much in disrepute. When major laboratories were unable to detect nuclear reactions on their work benches back in 1989, the whole notion of what was then called "cold fusion" was debunked as junk science and for most remains so to this day. Fortunately however, a few scientists kept plugging away on just how one could get heat from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Now their efforts seem to be paying off. In recent months numerous respected scientists have been reporting at scientific gatherings that they are seeing increasing amounts of heat, which can only be coming from nuclear reactions, during experiments with hydrogen loaded into nickel and palladium under the proper conditions.

There have been so many of these reports by reliable and respected scientists that it has become absurd to claim that the phenomenon is fraudulent or that all these scientists are mistaken in their observations. Currently there are at least six different organizations around the world saying they have a commercially useful heat-producing device under development which they will be demonstrating soon.

To the comfort of skeptics, most of these organizations have been very circumspect in releasing details of their devices and the physics behind them. There are, of course several reasons for this reticence. Some may hope to keep their heat-producing secret as long as possible in hopes of making money from their discovery. More likely, however, is that while they have developed a way to produce heat, they really don't understand the physics underlying their device.

This situation however seems to be changing following a lengthy interview with a fellow out in Berkeley, California by the name of Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy. He has been working in this field for the last ten years and says that he not only has a reliable heat-producing device, but also understands the physics behind it – which he calls the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis. He says that this theory of just how low-energy nuclear reactions work has allowed the development of a device which produces heat immediately and reliably. Most interestingly, Godes says he has shared his insights with scientists at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories and SRI International, one of the leading US laboratories investigating the phenomenon. He says that both have verified that his theory does indeed work and that they can now produce heat from hydrogen every time they try.

A cautiously optimistic article from a PO writer and somebody with a superb record in writing about PO for years now.

Worth taking seriously.

[hodson2k9]

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... hypothesis

For nearly 25 years now, the idea that it might be possible to extract unlimited amounts of energy from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom at low temperatures has been pretty much in disrepute. When major laboratories were unable to detect nuclear reactions on their work benches back in 1989, the whole notion of what was then called "cold fusion" was debunked as junk science and for most remains so to this day. Fortunately however, a few scientists kept plugging away on just how one could get heat from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Now their efforts seem to be paying off. In recent months numerous respected scientists have been reporting at scientific gatherings that they are seeing increasing amounts of heat, which can only be coming from nuclear reactions, during experiments with hydrogen loaded into nickel and palladium under the proper conditions.

There have been so many of these reports by reliable and respected scientists that it has become absurd to claim that the phenomenon is fraudulent or that all these scientists are mistaken in their observations. Currently there are at least six different organizations around the world saying they have a commercially useful heat-producing device under development which they will be demonstrating soon.

To the comfort of skeptics, most of these organizations have been very circumspect in releasing details of their devices and the physics behind them. There are, of course several reasons for this reticence. Some may hope to keep their heat-producing secret as long as possible in hopes of making money from their discovery. More likely, however, is that while they have developed a way to produce heat, they really don't understand the physics underlying their device.

This situation however seems to be changing following a lengthy interview with a fellow out in Berkeley, California by the name of Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy. He has been working in this field for the last ten years and says that he not only has a reliable heat-producing device, but also understands the physics behind it – which he calls the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis. He says that this theory of just how low-energy nuclear reactions work has allowed the development of a device which produces heat immediately and reliably. Most interestingly, Godes says he has shared his insights with scientists at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories and SRI International, one of the leading US laboratories investigating the phenomenon. He says that both have verified that his theory does indeed work and that they can now produce heat from hydrogen every time they try.

A cautiously optimistic article from a PO writer and somebody with a superb record in writing about PO for years now.

Worth taking seriously.

Already been posted

www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... 4&start=60

[hodson2k9]

LB3 don't know if you have read any of that thread? if you haven't you should take a look over the last couple of pages, theres been some interesting developments in the LENR field of late (especially the story about the high school and open source reactor).

[mobbsey]

A cautiously optimistic article from a PO writer and somebody with a superb record in writing about PO for years now.
Worth taking seriously.

No it isn't!

What all the cold fusion people ignore is the fact that any natural phenomena, especially one involving ambient conditions rather than specialised circumstances, will always exhibit itself naturally within the universe without human intervention. OK, so stars are an example of fusion, but long before humans even existed there was already a natural thermal fission reactor in existence in Africa producing heat.

In a universe that is relatively cold, you would expect that cold fusion would be popping up all over the place to present curious anomalies of energy accounting -- but it doesn't. For example, how likely was it that ancient cyanobacteria were able to develop photosynthesis?; and on that basis why is it that other ambient temperature physical phenomena such as "cold fusion" have not have been incorporated into living processes? If it were possible you can bet that nature would be there before us to naturally exploit the principle, particularly one which as a source of energy confers such a significant biological advantage.

On the basis that we don't find this phenomena cropping up naturally I think we can discount the idea of "cold" fusion.