>Misinformation>Chinese researchCan disregard, especially for the latter
This idea has been around for quite some time now:
Research was effectively shelved when the Nixon Administration decided in the 1970s that the U.S nuclear industry would concentrate on a new generation of uranium-fueled, fast-breeder reactors. For a range of technical and political reasons, not least the public’s fear of nuclear plants, these new uranium reactors have yet to come into widespread commercial use.”
Quote from: Moderatoren sind Nazis on March 29, 2015, 07:26:46 PM>Misinformation>Chinese researchCan disregard, especially for the latter QuoteThis idea has been around for quite some time now:Clearly you didn't read. China didn't create this idea or the first to attempt the idea.
Too bad some people think just because China might try to get the ball rolling first, they immediately think America can't just speed up and pass China.. that its fake.That's why we can't have anything nice.
Quote from: Forgewolf on March 29, 2015, 07:40:10 PMToo bad some people think just because China might try to get the ball rolling first, they immediately think America can't just speed up and pass China.. that its fake.That's why we can't have anything nice.The featured product of the article, however, is nowhere near becoming reality.
Kevin: Your thinking is unclear. There is nothing wrong with nuclear. Fukashima has little to do with reality in this case. I was just comparing Collective Evolution’s article about Fukashima and Helen Caldicott’s hand wringing. It is the opposite of giving nuclear material to everyone with a car.I’ve read and re-read your last sentence and cannot make sense of it. Can you clarify your thinking?You really need to proof read before sending.Are you Kev the cyclonic toroidal induction electron precession guy?
Quote from: Jocephalopod on March 29, 2015, 07:50:25 PMKevin: Your thinking is unclear. There is nothing wrong with nuclear. Fukashima has little to do with reality in this case. I was just comparing Collective Evolution’s article about Fukashima and Helen Caldicott’s hand wringing. It is the opposite of giving nuclear material to everyone with a car.I’ve read and re-read your last sentence and cannot make sense of it. Can you clarify your thinking?You really need to proof read before sending.Are you Kev the cyclonic toroidal induction electron precession guy?His name is Kevin?Wait, no, you're a massive shitposter.But anyways, the name Kevin is such a stupid name.
Quote from: Jocephalopod on March 29, 2015, 07:50:25 PMKevin: Your thinking is unclear. There is nothing wrong with nuclear. Fukashima has little to do with reality in this case. I was just comparing Collective Evolution’s article about Fukashima and Helen Caldicott’s hand wringing. It is the opposite of giving nuclear material to everyone with a car.I’ve read and re-read your last sentence and cannot make sense of it. Can you clarify your thinking?You really need to proof read before sending.Are you Kev the cyclonic toroidal induction electron precession guy?I've made no comment on that article, so no.
It would be massively inefficient to put a thorium reactor in a car for the same reason you don't have a petroleum refinery built into your internal combustion engine. When thorium reactors finally gain traction, they'll be used in power plants to power, among every other electronic device, battery-powered cars.
Quote from: Forgewolf on March 29, 2015, 07:53:54 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on March 29, 2015, 07:50:25 PMKevin: Your thinking is unclear. There is nothing wrong with nuclear. Fukashima has little to do with reality in this case. I was just comparing Collective Evolution’s article about Fukashima and Helen Caldicott’s hand wringing. It is the opposite of giving nuclear material to everyone with a car.I’ve read and re-read your last sentence and cannot make sense of it. Can you clarify your thinking?You really need to proof read before sending.Are you Kev the cyclonic toroidal induction electron precession guy?I've made no comment on that article, so no.are you kevin?
Instead of focusing on what the car does, hire people who know how to design cars because god damn that thing is probably the ugliest object I have ever laid eyes on.
It's confirmed, we're getting closer to the Fallout world. We're going to die from a thermonuclear war by 2077 while we drive our nuclear-powered cars.
Quote from: Mega Sceptile on March 31, 2015, 01:18:22 AMQuote from: Jono on March 30, 2015, 02:07:30 AMInstead of focusing on what the car does, hire people who know how to design cars because god damn that thing is probably the ugliest object I have ever laid eyes on. this, so much, that thing that is in the OP is NOT a car, it's an abomination.It's pretty awesome looking.
Quote from: Jono on March 30, 2015, 02:07:30 AMInstead of focusing on what the car does, hire people who know how to design cars because god damn that thing is probably the ugliest object I have ever laid eyes on. this, so much, that thing that is in the OP is NOT a car, it's an abomination.
This has been debunked many times, up there w/ solar roadways.
Quote from: SexyBarracuda on March 31, 2015, 09:05:06 PMThis has been debunked many times, up there w/ solar roadways.Really? :/
This Car Runs For 100 Years Without Refuelling – The Thorium Car
