Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 15, 2018 3:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Feb 23, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
darryl siemer wrote:
(Again I’m not afraid to address “issues” that are politically charged – it’s the deliberate avoidance of such issues that’s rendered modern “science” unable to address real problems)

While I can agree with your statement my primary concern is that some of the points you make seem out of place. The paper is about "killer apps" for nuclear power, therefore one would expect to see a list of applications for nuclear power that one might not normally consider. Bringing up a topic like population control in a paper on the potential applications for nuclear power is simply out of place, the potential for bruising a reader's political sensibilities is simply another reason to avoid the unnecessary commentary. The goal is to convince people that nuclear power is a good thing. If you have a side commentary on something unrelated to nuclear power in the paper then you risk creating an animosity towards nuclear power only because they dislike your views on an unrelated subject.

If you explained how population control is a "killer app" for nuclear power then I'd see no problem with including it in this paper, political correctness be damned. Since this connection between nuclear power and population control is left unexplained then it might be worthy of comment if it wasn't so politically charged. The side commentary on polymeric cements is a bit out of place as well but there is little risk of an emotional response from a reader over this, therefore the mention of this alternative may even be helpful.

Political correctness in scientific debates is a problem and I would also like to see that emotion does not drive scientific arguments. I also believe that everyone needs to choose carefully what battles they want to fight and when they do so.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 23, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
Kurt Sellner wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
(Again I’m not afraid... t

If you explained how population control is a "killer app" for nuclear power then I'd see no problem with including it in this paper, political correctness be damned. Since this connection between nuclear power and population control is left unexplained then it might be worthy of comment ...i


??? Here's what my paper says about the tie in between a nuclear renaissance and "painless population control".

Fortunately, it has also been demonstrated – most effectively by Scandinavian counties - that the best way to simultaneously address overcrowding and climate change is to increase the quality of life (prosperity) of already-living individuals (Dao 2012) - something that only a properly implemented “second nuclear era” could render possible for ~9 billion people and more just a token fraction of the earth’s other advanced life forms.

If that's not a good enough explanation, how can I make it clearer? The real problem is that, collectively, humans are about as "sapient" as is beer yeast or rats - we reproduce madly until almost all of the "sugar" has been consumed, fight over the dregs, and then die off in droves. Unless we begin to behave differently, there'll probably be a third world war during this century that cuts human population by >80%.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 23, 2017 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
darryl siemer wrote:
If that's not a good enough explanation, how can I make it clearer?

I believe where you are going is that with increasing education and prosperity there is a tendency for reduced birth rates, is that correct? I ask because you did not state that explicitly. This is generally accepted as true but it is not always true. I recall reading somewhere that the low birth rates in Scandinavia is due to cultural pressures rather than economic prosperity. I don't have my source handy so I can't fault you if you don't believe me. The point is that I had to read that several times before I saw the connection and even then I'm not sure if I'm right.

I'd like to go on but it's late and I have a midterm exam tomorrow. I hope I was helpful.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 12, 2018 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since my last post on this topic. None of the papers I'd showed you ended up being accepted/published but I was then asked to write up a chapter for a then-upcoming soil science book describing the hows and whys of my basalt-based geoengineering (carbon dioxide removal) scheme. The book's editors loved it & asked me write up another describing how how one might go about determining whether soil carbon is "pedogenic" or not. They liked that one too & have since asked me to write another chapter for next year's issue of that book series which is to be devoted to solving Africa's future food production problems.

Here's a draft - let's kick it around for awhile.


Attachments:
AFRICA chapter formatted 2nd revised.docx [105.25 KiB]
Downloaded 21 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 250
I think the diet part of the paper would benefit from a comparison of the recommended daily intake of essential amino acids with the relative concentration in maize, peanuts, and whatever. But for healthy adults it is hard to find an actual diet which is deficient in one or more essential amino acids if the person consumes sufficient calories of that diet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 14, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
Also deficient in amino acids is easy enough to fix by simply fortifying existing foodstuffs with things like UProtein.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 15, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
I GOOGLED "UP PROTEIN" & of course the first thing that comes up is a string of adds for it. Apparently it's just dried whey - a byproduct of cheese manufacture - that somebody's added some coloring/flavoring to & thereby turned into a $35/kg plus shipping "health food" for yuppies. The people I'm writing about are genuinely poor which is why I suggested that they grow/eat peanuts & corn. They're both "complex" foodstuffs which between them provide just about everything that humans need to thrive, are relatively easy to raise in large quantities, & cheap enough for even poor people to eat: US farmers currently get about 55 cents/kg for their peanuts and 15 cents/kg for corn - of course, we consumers here have pay a hell a lot more for them (especially peanuts) 'cause the of the way we do things (create/tolerate marketing cartels).

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 15, 2018 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
darryl siemer wrote:
I GOOGLED "UP PROTEIN" & of course the first thing that comes up is a string of adds for it. Apparently it's just dried whey - a byproduct of cheese manufacture - that somebody's added some coloring/flavoring to & thereby turned into a $35/kg plus shipping "health food" for yuppies. The people I'm writing about are genuinely poor which is why I suggested that they grow/eat peanuts & corn. They're both "complex" foodstuffs which between them provide just about everything that humans need to thrive, are relatively easy to raise in large quantities, & cheap enough for even poor people to eat: US farmers currently get about 55 cents/kg for their peanuts and 15 cents/kg for corn - of course, we consumers here have pay a hell a lot more for them (especially peanuts) 'cause the of the way we do things (create/tolerate marketing cartels).


THey apparently changed the name toUniProtein, probably to avoid confusion with that stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
E Ireland wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
I GOOGLED "UP PROTEIN" & of course the first thing that comes up is a string of adds for it. Apparently it's just dried whey - a byproduct of cheese manufacture - that somebody's added some coloring/flavoring to & thereby turned into a $35/kg plus shipping "health food" for yuppies. The people I'm writing about are genuinely poor which is why I suggested that they grow/eat peanuts & corn. They're both "complex" foodstuffs which between them provide just about everything that humans need to thrive, are relatively easy to raise in large quantities, & cheap enough for even poor people to eat: US farmers currently get about 55 cents/kg for their peanuts and 15 cents/kg for corn - of course, we consumers here have pay a hell a lot more for them (especially peanuts) 'cause the of the way we do things (create/tolerate marketing cartels).


They apparently changed the name toUniProtein, probably to avoid confusion with that stuff.


I've just GOOGLED "UNIPROTEIN" & found that it can be purchased from AMAZON (India) for "just" $26/kg. It's also apparently a "milk protein" product (probably whey) so the stuff in question probably hasn't changed.

Does anyone who's still reading this forum actually care about the sorts of things (my chapter's subject matter) comprising the most compelling reasons that anyone would ever consider implementing a genuinely sustainable
Attachment:
revision J JSEE-2018-0007.docx [1.41 MiB]
Downloaded 17 times
nuclear renaissance?

Here's a rewrite that's been aimed at a different audience.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jul 26, 2018 3:23 am
Posts: 28
I am quite optimistic about Generation IV reactors and their ability to produce enough carbon free energy for mankind.

Nuclear could replace all coal and gas power plants.

Railways could be electrified. I have read some rumors about coming age of electric cars, but I am little bit skeptic about that.

Cargo ships, commercial motor vehicles and aviation still need liquid fuels, and carbon is the element that makes practical liquid fuels. You could try hydrazine and hydrogen, but one is toxic and the other is quite difficult to put in a bottle and keep it there. Compared to hydrocarbon fuels, those carbon-free fuels are inferior. We need carbon, regardless where or how we get it.

All required primary energy could be produced with nuclear power plants.

_________________
Transuranic heavy elements may not be used where there is life.
– Sapphire & Steel intro


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 6:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
darryl siemer wrote:
I've just GOOGLED "UNIPROTEIN" & found that it can be purchased from AMAZON (India) for "just" $26/kg. It's also apparently a "milk protein" product (probably whey) so the stuff in question probably hasn't changed.


For the avoidance of doubt. Unibio.dk
It's an SCP product derived from direct fermentation of methane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
E Ireland wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
I've just GOOGLED "UNIPROTEIN" & found that it can be purchased from AMAZON (India) for "just" $26/kg. It's also apparently a "milk protein" product (probably whey) so the stuff in question probably hasn't changed.


For the avoidance of doubt. Unibio.dk
It's an SCP product derived from direct fermentation of methane


What's "SCP"? I still have doubt and your link is to a sales pitch that sounds like it was written by some of the folks hired to push weird nuclear reactor schemes - there's almost no technical information, just lots of assurances that wonderful stuff made by their magic reactor from methane is going solve really big problems. For instance, proteins (amino acids) differ primarily from the rest of the stuff that we're made of because they contain reduced-form nitrogen. Methane doesn't have any nitrogen in it which means that some other mysterious ingredient containing it has to go into the bioreactor. Ammonia? nitric acid? ground-up peas...what? Is an energy source necessary too? If so what is it? If it's "light" (photosynthesis), then the reactor is going to have to be configured in a way that allows light to get into it - kinda like what a plant's leaf does "naturally". If so then where does the light come from - solar towers?

Anyway, though that stuff - the version made in a bioreactor, not just dried whey - has apparently been on the market for some time now, GOOGLING doesn't reveal a way to actually buy it or determine what it would cost. Corn, peanuts,soybeans... are cheap & so is the protein they contain.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Last edited by darryl siemer on Aug 21, 2018 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
nipo wrote:
I am quite optimistic about Generation IV reactors and their ability to produce enough carbon free energy for mankind.

Nuclear could replace all coal and gas power plants.

Railways could be electrified. I have read some rumors about coming age of electric cars, but I am little bit skeptic about that.

Cargo ships, commercial motor vehicles and aviation still need liquid fuels, and carbon is the element that makes practical liquid fuels. You could try hydrazine and hydrogen, but one is toxic and the other is quite difficult to put in a bottle and keep it there. Compared to hydrocarbon fuels, those carbon-free fuels are inferior. We need carbon, regardless where or how we get it.

All required primary energy could be produced with nuclear power plants.


I totally agree with you. There is another liquid fuel that could potentially serve most of the purposes we're talking about - ammonia.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
darryl siemer wrote:
What's "SCP"?


Single Cell Protein - like Quorn.

Lots of work was done in the 80s during the oil glut, and apparently the Soviet Union was big on it but it stopped during the economic chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union

darryl siemer wrote:
I still have doubt and your link is to a sales pitch that sounds like it was written by some of the folks hired to push weird nuclear reactor schemes - there's almost no technical information, just lots of assurances that wonderful stuff made by their magic reactor from methane is going solve really big problems. For instance, proteins (amino acids) differ primarily from the rest of the stuff that we're made of because they contain reduced-form nitrogen. Methane doesn't have any nitrogen in it which means that some other mysterious ingredient containing it has to go into the bioreactor. Ammonia? nitric acid? ground-up peas...what? Is an energy source necessary too? If so what is it? If it's "light" (photosynthesis), then the reactor is going to have to be configured in a way that allows light to get into it - kinda like what a plant's leaf does "naturally". If so then where does the light come from - solar towers?

The energy and carbon source in the methane, nitrogen is supplied as metal nitrates (sodium, potassium, calcium etc) or as ammonium nitrate.

darryl siemer wrote:
Anyway, though that stuff - the version made in a bioreactor, not just dried whey - has apparently been on the market for some time now, GOOGLING doesn't reveal a way to actually buy it or determine what it would cost. Corn, peanuts,soybeans... are cheap & so is the protein they contain.


Lots of people eat single cell protein grown in a fermenter every day - Quorn is the obvious example.
High quality protein that is nutritionally complete with essential amino acids is rather more expensive than soybean meal though, even defatted meal is only 48% protein.

SCP can be 70-80% or more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 21, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 317
Location: idaho falls
E Ireland wrote:
darryl siemer wrote:
What's "SCP"?


Single Cell Protein - like Quorn.

Lots of work was done in the 80s during the oil glut, and apparently the Soviet Union was big on it but it stopped during the economic chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union

[quote

Lots of people eat single cell protein grown in a fermenter every day - Quorn is the obvious example.
High quality protein that is nutritionally complete with essential amino acids is rather more expensive than soybean meal though, even defatted meal is only 48% protein.

SCP can be 70-80% or more.


I suspect that the Soviets gave up on it because it just didn't make much sense (the Ruskies are pretty "funny" that way ).

The cheapest "quorn" I could find anywhere was WALMART's fake "chicken nuggets".

Quorn Chik 'n Nuggets Meatless & Soy-Free ( Walmart # 551009064) 10.6 OZ for $9.41 (that comes to $31.24 per kg, again about a zillion times more than what genuinely poor people can afford to spend on food)

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group