JCP

When physicists say that there is no center of the universe, they mean that there is no point out in space that they can refer to as "the center of expansion". Because all the evidence suggests that all the galaxies are moving away from each other as time goes on. There isn't much that is said about the actual center of the universe, if there is one. Current theories suggest that the universe is flat, and therefore must be infinite in all directions. So, for all intents and purposes, there shouldn't be a center of the universe. A quote from the link:

I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that my doubts about nuclear fission are justified. I'm not pulling any of this out of my ass. Again, that depends on which nuclear source we are talking about. I'm enthusiastic about fusion (provided that anything could ever come out of it), not so much about fission. I think that we can both agree that the potential for most of the alternatives to fossil fuel, nuclear or otherwise, is quite large, but no single one will solve our crisis. That's true. But its also not very usable in vapor form. Yes, and this is why you have to look all of the facts presented to you by both sides. I will trust that both of us did that, and came to different conclusions. You're optimistic, I'm not so much. I think for now, its better if we agree to disagree, lest a flame war begins. Also, keep in mind that this whole argument spawned from the disbelief or misunderstanding that food, water, and energy are interconnected. I apologize if you felt that this argument was too heated, I never intended for this to happen. Yes this is true, to a certain degree and depending on which localities you are talking about. Some nations are well equipped to base their energy system primarily on nuclear. I doubt, however, that the United States or China will be able to accomplish the same feat, simply because of the way their societies are structured (i.e. trying running the Interstate Highway System on electricity). The United States also has their dysfunctional political system, which makes it even more difficult for anything to get done. All those politicians have to represent all of those special interest groups... I was just giving an example of how power plants use up fresh water, whether directly (through evaporation) or indirectly (pollution). Nuclear no doubt uses it up differently, but the overall point was that the demands on water by the energy sector are quite large, second only to agriculture! I never meant to argue, sorry if it felt that way. Thanks for taking the time to debate your points! I'm sure that some of us at least came to an understanding, and learned something over the past day.

Give me an example of a commercial reactor that runs on thorium, because I don't know of any. And there are no fast breeder reactors in operation. Here is the actual outlook for nuclear: The political aspect: http://spectrum.ieee...f-nuclear-power The energy economics of it (a good summary of both EROI and reserve dat. Note that it states that it is, at best, a transition energy source): http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877 More economics: http://www.rmi.org/r...uclearSocialism Energy end use data: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html Look closely at figure 16 at the last link, and you tell me if nuclear will ever amount to anything. On the other hand, renewables look like they will be the big winner. Here is the outlook for fast breeder reactors and other generation IV nuclear reactors: http://www.fissilema...tus_of_fas.html Read that one carefully, and you tell me if nuclear will ever amount to anything. Here is a quote: Of course, that is just the most recent report. Over ten years ago most of the fast breeder reactors were abandoned because they were "too costly and of doubtful value": http://dieoff.org/page155.htm Japan seems to have continued onward, but as far as I know they aren't any closer to producing a commercially viable fast breeder reactor today than they were ten years ago. They are all still in the experimental stage, and are likely to come online beyond the year 2030. So far, only the generation III + nuclear reactors are going to be online anytime soon, and that's only if the whole Fukushima fiasco doesn't impact development too negatively. RE: Thorium. Here is the reserve data for Thorium: http://minerals.usgs...-2011-thori.pdf And here it is for uranium: http://en.wikipedia....ranium_reserves If we take those figures at face value, this implies that there is actually less thorium than uranium. Again, there are no power plants that are fast breeder reactors or generation IV nuclear power plants (not expected until 2030 at the earliest) in commercial operation. So this is moot. I'm just being a realist, I have no agenda to speak of. And you will see that I'm not misrepresenting anything. You are. Unless there is a breakthrough in, say, fusion or some other novel energy source, I seriously doubt that nuclear will pick up the slack left by fossil fuels alone. Especially considering the fact that energy demands tend to grow exponentially over time. I showed little data because I had initially believed that this was obvious. Nuclear and hydro are still rare, after decades of development, compared to the world energy outlook. Hydro has very little potential left (how many rivers or other bodies of water can be found...), and nuclear is looking like a dead end so far, at least if the plan is to support our already overpopulated planet, or keep on with business as usual. Coal is used primarily because of its high EROEI and low technology requirements, particularly in China. This is why you don't rely one a single source for your electricity. And the impacts of weather and intermittenty on renewable energy are usually overblown; they can easily be overcome. Solar has much better prospects than fast breeders. In fact, it is already possible to generate solar energy during the night. Unlike fast breeder reactors, this project looks like it has a chance of getting off the ground. Even more significantly, the IPCC agrees that renewables can pick up the slack, in a landmark study done recently: http://www.guardian....rgy-power-world But then again, this is off topic. We are here to discuss the viability of nuclear. Then falsify it. I had not posted any information on it because I thought it was obvious. But I guess I was wrong. Look at where nuclear is located. And the pollution doesn't have to be on site, there are other ways it gets into the water supply too. Here is a quote: They are connected much more strongly than you believe, for the simple fact that the energy sector has to compete with other sectors for water use. The issue is that the water is evaporated, that's why it is mostly unusable. It is also polluted to a degree too, when you take into account the mines or other negative externalities. This is a very well known fact by the way, I don't see why you are hostile to this suggestion. Unless you actually believe that the laws of thermodynamics can be violated. I was responding to another post. I gotta love the irony here. The bottom line, Moontanmann, is that nuclear is very unlikely to pick up the slack on the scale that you imagine it at. Unless one of three things happen first 1) Reduce energy demand 2) Reduce population numbers 3) A miraculous breakthrough occurs We are locked into population growth for at least one more generation, and when and where a breakthrough will occur is anyone's guess. But I can tell you that it is extraordinarily unlikely to occur in nuclear energy. That leaves 1) reduce energy demand. But 1) is dependent on 2) or 3). If a solution isn't found soon... ======================================================= I'm not here to do that under this thread either. I was just making a statement of fact, that was all. As nuclear only covers only 6% of the world energy demand, I think all of the pro-nuclear types are certainly hard pressed to show that it can possibly be scaled up to the degree that they claim it could be done. Particularly with surging demand from China and India, and other developing nations. I personally think that, even with fast breeders, it can't possibly be done, especially given limited reserves in toto. Fusion potentially could, but when anything will come out of that is anyone's guess. But then, I could be wrong. Only time will tell, I suppose. That being said, I don't deny that it help alleviate some of the problems with our energy crisis. But it will probably have to be part of an energy mix. Although, if you have followed this most recent post, there is quite a bit that has to be addressed, and the burden of proof is on the nuclear industry; my points are not easily debunked.

I beg to differ, unless you are talking about fusion. If you scale up nuclear to anywhere near the fraction now provided by fossil fuels, there will most certainly be a shortage. I will admit that I don't have any real data on thorium, but my experience suggests that the people who often push for agendas, particularly the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, usually exaggerate reserves and/or potential, so I'm not going to hold my breath. And in any case, thorium reactors are experimental, and investment in them by nations is sporadic at best. They aren't expected to come online until at least the 2030's, if at all. That being said, it doesn't mean that nuclear can't be part of an energy mix. But don't expect our entire civilization to be nuclear powered anytime soon. Yes, that's true too. I was just putting their versatility into perspective, in that they don't have to take up arable land. All power plants consume water. Any water that is used in a power plant is unusable for anything else, either due to evaporation or pollution. This is a well known fact. Hydroelectric power plants are particularly vulnerable, since they are heavily dependent on the hydrological cycle. What matters more is food per capita, not the total amount of food grown. Grain per capita has peaked in 1986 due to population growth and the adoption of the western diet in developing countries, and biofuels are the cause of the current food crisis, since more grains are devoted to fuel and energy rather than food. This is just a small example of how our water, energy, and food supplies are interconnected. The evidence for human induced global warming is indisputable. What's more, the rate of warming and emissions has been happening faster than even the worst case scenario outlined in the IPCC report. Well, just take care to provide more facts first, before you give your opinions.

I would think that highly improbable. Most of these impacts occurred millions of years ago, and the energy from them has long since dissipated.

But how would it get away from Jupiter's gigantic gravitational field?

I did understand all that. And I am personally uncertain how thorium reactors will work in practice. But I don't think they would alleviate all of the problems associated with nuclear power in general. And in the end, you still have the problem of waste (breeder reactors can get rid of high level waste; Its good, but you only shift the problem). Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that is correct. However, I will add that with the exception of concentrated solar power, solar and wind do not consume a lot of fresh water. You can always put solar panels on rooftops, and wind turbines take up very little space to begin with. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, however, consume quite a bit of fresh water. And many proposed alternatives, such as biofuels and algae, compete for land too. The food crisis going on all over the world is caused in part by the diversion of crops to fuel production. How so? The bulk of our power does not come from nuclear to begin with. Barring a break through in fusion, I seriously doubt that nuclear could pick up the slack. Unless, of course, you find a way to significantly reduce demand, or supplement it with renewable energy. Also, the end use of nuclear is electricity; there is still transportation and fuel that you have to worry about. Although, I suppose that transportation could be electrified. Yes, it reduces those problems, but doesn't do away with them entirely. Although, I will give that this is more of a political problem rather than a technical one; I personally don't think they are that much of an issue provided that everyone is smart. What I mean is that the energy sector competes directly with both water and agriculture, since they demand pretty much the same resources. Energy, water and food are interconnected. If production in one sector goes down, it will negatively impact the other two. It does, through evaporation. Hydroelectric in particular is terrible when it comes to evaporation. And you need to find a way to cool down all of those spend fuel rods where nuclear is concerned. Power generation is as demanding of fresh water supplies as is agriculture. The real kicker is that global warming will cause the atmosphere to hold more water, which will make the problem worse. I suppose it will, either through a global pandemic or thermonuclear warfare over what remains. Either of those will put an end to our civilization. Whatever the outcome, I seriously doubt that there will be billions of us flying around in airplanes, eating lots of meat, and driving really huge cars at century's end. Read the above.

That depends on how small you make that change. According to a recent article on Physorg, it apparently doesn't take much to make the formation of stars and galaxies impossible (a 4% difference would render life as we know it impossible!): http://www.physorg.com/news202921592.html On the other hand, there is a possibility that it does exhibit small variations.

So... how did Mars move from the orbit of Jupiter to where it is today? That is a distance of nearly 4 AU that it has to cover in an astonishingly short amount of time! I would expect Mars to either become a moon of Jupiter, or just simply gobbled up.

29 years is a very short time compared to fossil fuels*, of which conventional oil and gas will be depleted in the next 70-80 years or so. What's more, not a lot of our energy comes from nuclear power to begin with, so it is even more scarce than fossil fuel. Its not entirely limitless. However, the potential problems with breeder reactors are that they generate more waste and they carry with them the increased risk of nuclear proliferation. Energy, food and water are tied together. Power plants consume gigantic amounts of fresh water, particularly nuclear and hydroelectric, which also has to compete with demand from the agricultural sector. And modern agriculture is heavily subsidized by fossil energy. A shortfall in either food or water will produce a shortfall in energy production. I hope so too, but I'm not hedging my bets. * I will allow for the fact that 29 years refers to proven or current reserves of uranium, rather than the ultimate recoverable resource base. Still, I can't imagine there being anywhere near enough to allow us to base our entire economy off of it.

Keeping your battery plugged in shouldn't be a problem. I keep my phone plugged in all the time, and my battery lifetime doesn't decrease. At least not noticeably. And if you are really worried about it, just recharge it only when it is almost out of juice. And do it during the day rather than at night so that you can unplug it when its done. Just buy a new one. Lithium ion batteries are quite durable to begin with, so barring some unlikely event it isn't going to degrade or break down very quickly.