Environment & Energy

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)

54. The results would be devestating either way.

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:01 PM

Dec 2012

Drier climates are one thing that is expected from doing it. You have to do it continuously. There's no "well we'll put X amount and we'll be good to go." It'll have to be regularly reinserted into the atmosphere. The planet would become toxic from sulphates distributed around the globe.

The effort required to do it, however, is minimal. You're talking a few million kg of sulphates per year, it's insignificant on the scheme of things. The only thing that's missing is a good sulphate sprayer and delivery mechanism, which they're working on.

This is really uncontroversial, I think if you get a 10 year drought it'll be done.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Norway Begins Four Year Test Of Thorium Nuclear Reactor [View all] wtmusic Dec 2012 OP

LFTR,read up on it and watch the videos. jonthebru Dec 2012 #1

Its biggest problem is the uranium mining industry wtmusic Dec 2012 #2

Me, too. And I am famously anti-nuke (the dangerous waste-generating kind). kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #3

Not me. I'm now anti-nuke all the way. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #4

That's where a carbon tax comes in wtmusic Dec 2012 #5

How do you make every country on the planet go along with it? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #6

Either you believe a solution is possible, or you don't. wtmusic Dec 2012 #7

Do you think a solution is possible? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #9

I don't understand the purpose of deeper thought if it's merely an expression of hopelessness. wtmusic Dec 2012 #12

There are seven billion different ways of finding value in existence. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #14

Oh, I'm all about LFTR, but we have to be honest about it. joshcryer Dec 2012 #8

But the top story is about a current project. Not some future pipe dream. jonthebru Dec 2012 #10

U233 not required. wtmusic Dec 2012 #13

Right, the "round about way." joshcryer Dec 2012 #15

No wtmusic Dec 2012 #17

Since it takes about a decade to build a reactor after permission is granted. joshcryer Dec 2012 #21

Your assumptions are based on no historical precedent wtmusic Dec 2012 #22

WEll, do you got a timeline when you think it will be built? joshcryer Dec 2012 #23

It could be built in 5 years. wtmusic Dec 2012 #25

Flibe Energy exists, though. joshcryer Dec 2012 #26

Again, you don't understand. PamW Dec 2012 #19

Then why does the thorium community want U233? joshcryer Dec 2012 #20

Having a hard time understanding? PamW Dec 2012 #27

God, you didn't even read my original fucking post here. joshcryer Dec 2012 #31

Evidently you don't understand how it works... PamW Dec 2012 #18

I was not aware that the thorium community wanted to start it with U235. joshcryer Dec 2012 #24

What U-233? PamW Dec 2012 #28

We have roughly 450 kg of U233 from the nuclear program. joshcryer Dec 2012 #32

Order of magnitude shy... PamW Dec 2012 #34

They want to start with a small reactor. joshcryer Dec 2012 #37

Where does it say that? PamW Dec 2012 #46

"So a LFTR, started on U-233..." Read the article? joshcryer Dec 2012 #47

Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #52

Politics played the biggest role, I admit. joshcryer Dec 2012 #53

For a guy who doesn't approve of energy, you certainly spend a lot of time on the internet. NNadir Dec 2012 #29

Why not? Arguing on the internet is a great way to pass the time till dinner. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #30

I'm just noting that many of the advocates of killing off humanity in an orgy of primitivism... NNadir Dec 2012 #57

Fishing again? nt GliderGuider Dec 2012 #58

There's a difference between advocacy and observation. joshcryer Dec 2012 #59

It's passive poverty. wtmusic Dec 2012 #33

Your lame attempt at moral bullying is duly noted. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #35

That's very profound, but in truth wtmusic Dec 2012 #36

What aspects of my expressed positions do you feel are hypocritical? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #38

This is ground that we've already covered but it's best phrased as a question wtmusic Dec 2012 #39

I don't approve or recommend dieoff. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #40

Inaction is approving dieoff. wtmusic Dec 2012 #41

Die off certainly isn't recommended. joshcryer Dec 2012 #44

Why do you give geoengineering a 50/50 shot? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #49

Sulphate aerosols are known to work (volcanos prove it). joshcryer Dec 2012 #50

Of course they "work" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #51

The results would be devestating either way. joshcryer Dec 2012 #54

Time will tell NoOneMan Dec 2012 #55

Necessity mainly. joshcryer Dec 2012 #56

Only if one feels that action will prevent it. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #45

Bad action is hastening dieoff NoOneMan Dec 2012 #48

BALONEY!!!! PamW Dec 2012 #16

The name "Thor Energy" XemaSab Dec 2012 #11

I noticed that, too! Odin2005 Dec 2012 #42

Yay for my fellow Norskies! Odin2005 Dec 2012 #43