Free energy VS Fossil Fuel

[choomer]

That one sentence is enough to label you and all you post here as irrelevant.
Fecking moonhowler

Then you haven't been educating yourself recently about his status:

"For the last eight years, the UK has refused to either confirm or deny that they have received an extradition request from the US. At the same time, they have refused to provide assurances that Julian will not be extradited to the US if such a request were to be received, and maintained an ever-present vigil of the Embassy, notwithstanding a UN directive to take steps to ensure Julian's immediate liberty," Assange's lawyer Melinda Taylor told CNN. "Their silence speaks volumes, particularly in light of recent statements from US officials that Julian's arrest and extradition are a priority."

"The concern from day one until the present is that if Julian Assange walks out of the Embassy, he will be extradited to face what the executive director of the ACLU described as an 'unprecedented and unconstitutional' prosecution under the US Espionage Act," Taylor told CNN.

In December, Assange received Ecuadorian citizenship, but the UK indicated it would not recognize his diplomatic status if requested by the Latin American nation, denying Assange the diplomatic immunity that would've allowed him to leave.

The UN, meanwhile, has twice ruled that Assange's detention is unlawful. Despite this, the judge in his most recent appeal - Emma Arbuthnot, who said "I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years."
​

Look a the very recent behavior the UK gov't has used w/ Tommy Robinson for an indicator as to their idea of jurisprudence.

But I do welcome any information you can provide to the contrary.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

so i looked up tommy robinson. he's basically a nut. he broke the law, what he claims is happening isn't happening, and he's had at least three other aliases. his real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon....why does a reputable person need three aliases?

julian assange is a rapist, he's the roman polanski of politics. i find anything such a person does questionable, and will always be suspicious of their motives.

Chelsea manning broke the law, and paid for it.

Edward Snowden took an oath, and broke it. He broke the law, and then ran. to our biggest historical enemy. not the actions of a patriot.
the actions of a traitorous dog thats never to be trusted again.

none of these people are noble. they're weak. they're bigots, and attention seekers. they know better than everyone else, they know what the entire world needs.....bullshit

 

[ttystikk]

That one sentence is enough to label you and all you post here as irrelevant.

Fecking moonhowler

That is actually truth of the matter. Your ignorance makes you look uninformed and biased.

 

[ttystikk]

so i looked up tommy robinson. he's basically a nut. he broke the law, what he claims is happening isn't happening, and he's had at least three other aliases. his real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon....why does a reputable person need three aliases?

julian assange is a rapist, he's the roman polanski of politics. i find anything such a person does questionable, and will always be suspicious of their motives.

Chelsea manning broke the law, and paid for it.

Edward Snowden took an oath, and broke it. He broke the law, and then ran. to our biggest historical enemy. not the actions of a patriot.
the actions of a traitorous dog thats never to be trusted again.

none of these people are noble. they're weak. they're bigots, and attention seekers. they know better than everyone else, they know what the entire world needs.....bullshit

You seem awfully happy to convict in the court of official opinion without evidence. All of these people released information showing that America is anything but a respectable actor.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

You seem awfully happy to convict in the court of official opinion without evidence. All of these people released information showing that America is anything but a respectable actor.

one criminal pointing out another doesn't absolve them of criminal activity.
and i know so little about "public opinion" that it would be embarassing, if i gave a shit. this is my "social media"...i don't facebook, or twatter, or instaporn......i read the news, usually from google news first, then i go to factcheck.org and see how much of it was bullshit, see what lies trump is telling today, check out the bbc news online, and thats about all the "public opinion" i get every day. i make up my own mind about people from the information i can gather, and then try to sort it into something resembling the truth. i'm probably wrong as much or more than i'm right, but i think the fact that i even try puts me ahead of the average bear

 

[ttystikk]

one criminal pointing out another doesn't absolve them of criminal activity.
and i know so little about "public opinion" that it would be embarassing, if i gave a shit. this is my "social media"...i don't facebook, or twatter, or instaporn......i read the news, usually from google news first, then i go to factcheck.org and see how much of it was bullshit, see what lies trump is telling today, check out the bbc news online, and thats about all the "public opinion" i get every day. i make up my own mind about people from the information i can gather, and then try to sort it into something resembling the truth. i'm probably wrong as much or more than i'm right, but i think the fact that i even try puts me ahead of the average bear

I used the term 'official opinion', which is a rather different animal than the public variety.

Assange is innocent if sex abuse charges until proven guilty, no matter what you might think about him.

Manning and Snowden are whistleblowers who have both paid dearly for bringing the evil being done in our name to light. They aren't perfect- but in a perfect world they wouldn't have had anything damning to expose.

I'm not a fan of exposing state secrets but on the other hand dirty shit like this needs to be seen and those responsible held to account. It's this last that no longer seems to happen in our country and we're all suffering for it in ways we know and ways we don't.

The mentality of 'it's okay if WE do it' doesn't wash and continues to pile up consequences our country will be paying for a long time to come.

 

[ttystikk]

Not even sure how we ended up talking about Assange and Co here.

This thread is about 'free energy' vs fossil fuels...

No such thing as free energy.

Wind, tidal, solar and geothermal energy all share no fuel cost, which means they can't help but be better than fossil fuels over time. Initial install of wind and solar is now less than building fossil fuel power and nuclear power is so expensive even the utilities building it need bailouts. It will NEVER be cost effective, period.

Thorium is unproven and billions away from being validated for power generation at all, nevermind actually building it. Doesn't mean it couldn't work, just that it's a long way off even if it received heavy investment.

Sodium cycle nuclear was indeed built right here in Colorado and it too failed the cost effectiveness test. The station was decommissioned and converted to natural gas.

Fusion keeps looking more and more promising but it looked promising when I was a kid in high school and I'm getting old now. It sure doesn't look cheap.

Energy efficiency- getting the most out of the energy we do produce- does not seem to get a lot of attention but it remains the best approach to reducing our overall energy consumption footprint as more consumers come online and while we are building out renewable energy infrastructure.

 

[ttystikk]

Energy efficiency can do A LOT;

Passive homes are built to use so little energy that the human inhabitants and their electronic devices suffice to keep them warm- and the same insulation keeps them cool as well.

Modern electronics are dramatically more energy efficient than older versions. My smartphone is more powerful than my desktop, yet uses a tiny fraction of the power.

Getting serious about recycling would save huge amounts of energy by reducing the need to extract raw materials and refine them. Steel and aluminum are prime examples. Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the electricity required to extract it from ore, over a kilowatt hour per soda can. Yet America throws away- as in doesn't recycle- enough aluminum in beverage cans alone to rebuild the entire commercial airline fleet every year.

Transportation just passed power generation as the world's largest source of CO² emissions in the last few years. America is a big offender; most other developed Nations have or are building extensive high speed rail networks that are competitive with air travel and emit drastically less pollution. America isn't even working on it. These run on electricity and are this far cleaner than even standard trains... speaking of which, electrifying freight rail tracks in America would also save huge amounts of energy and reduce diesel emissions everywhere freight railroads go, including cities and suburbs nationwide. Again, America is bringing up the rear in this obvious, cost effective and well proven technology.

Electric cars are multiple times more efficient than gas or diesel, yet Americans are buying gas guzzlers in ever greater numbers. It would help if there were electric pickups and minivans on the market.

This list represents the low hanging fruit. There's much more. Our country just plain sucks at energy efficiency and conservation, in large part because we insist on granting political power to the highest bidders- who in most cases are corporations and shareholders with vested interests in protecting their market share even at the cost of the greater good. That fact might be the biggest inefficiency of all.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

there are huge tracts of desert where they could build solar farms, with some real study, they ought to be able to figure out where the best places for wind farms are, with the minimum of environmental impact. there are 100s of thousands of hot springs and other features that could be tapped for geothermal energy. in one generation we could break our dependence on petroleum. it would be a monumental project, but it could happen. it would just require an armed guard at every meeting of two or more major executives, with orders to shoot to kill if they speak to each other..... society is an animal, and capitalism is a parasite on that animal. a leech that's grown so fat, it's in danger of killing its host.
i'm an anachronism, i'm a cowboy, i'm a knight errant, but i'm getting old and tired of waiting for a leader to step up that's worth following....where are they?

 

[choomer]

so i looked up tommy robinson. he's basically a nut. he broke the law, what he claims is happening isn't happening, and he's had at least three other aliases. his real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon....why does a reputable person need three aliases?
julian assange is a rapist, he's the roman polanski of politics. i find anything such a person does questionable, and will always be suspicious of their motives.
Chelsea manning broke the law, and paid for it.
Edward Snowden took an oath, and broke it. He broke the law, and then ran. to our biggest historical enemy. not the actions of a patriot.
the actions of a traitorous dog thats never to be trusted again.
none of these people are noble. they're weak. they're bigots, and attention seekers. they know better than everyone else, they know what the entire world needs.....bullshit

Tommy may have some interesting history, but in this one instance I see the UK gov't overstepping it's bounds in an extreme manner.
3 aliases are too few if you were able to find them so easily in today's doxxing society, especially if the aliased person is angering the immigrant mulim population by calling out practices they find acceptable (rape and pedophilia of "infidels") in their countries being practiced by them in western countries.
It has been proven IMHO that the UK like, France, Germany, and Sweden has let PC culture create a phobia for telling the truth when it concerns an ethnic group. I talk to people in Sweden enough to know.

Chelsea (in my opinion) had a crisis of conscience when he/she knew that the gov't was lying to congress when being SPECIFICALLY asked about a subject and therefore the entire US public.

Snowden did what he did for the same reasons.

Only in America can telling the truth be legislated as treason or espionage.

I used the term 'official opinion', which is a rather different animal than the public variety.
Assange is innocent if sex abuse charges until proven guilty, no matter what you might think about him.
Manning and Snowden are whistleblowers who have both paid dearly for bringing the evil being done in our name to light. They aren't perfect- but in a perfect world they wouldn't have had anything damning to expose.
I'm not a fan of exposing state secrets but on the other hand dirty shit like this needs to be seen and those responsible held to account. It's this last that no longer seems to happen in our country and we're all suffering for it in ways we know and ways we don't.
The mentality of 'it's okay if WE do it' doesn't wash and continues to pile up consequences our country will be paying for a long time to come.

In this we are in complete agreement.

Wait for the following post dealing w/ "free energy" (a stupid term and quite unrepresentative of a source of energy not yet known to society at large) for some debate, but it may not come soon as I have to get the poblano and exotic toms I scored at the farmers market into the garden.
I'm WAY late in getting the garden fully utilized!

 

[Cx2H]

Is no free energy.

Free is obliterated by parts, maintenance, installation, operation, anti-free corporation's etc. Of any current or future projects. Just ain't happening bruh.

Fossil fuels are an antiquated technology still used for job's and profits.

Green Is the way to go but big oil ain't having that.

#IMO #Random

 

[ttystikk]

there are huge tracts of desert where they could build solar farms, with some real study, they ought to be able to figure out where the best places for wind farms are, with the minimum of environmental impact. there are 100s of thousands of hot springs and other features that could be tapped for geothermal energy. in one generation we could break our dependence on petroleum. it would be a monumental project, but it could happen. it would just require an armed guard at every meeting of two or more major executives, with orders to shoot to kill if they speak to each other..... society is an animal, and capitalism is a parasite on that animal. a leech that's grown so fat, it's in danger of killing its host.
i'm an anachronism, i'm a cowboy, i'm a knight errant, but i'm getting old and tired of waiting for a leader to step up that's worth following....where are they?

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with corporations as such; they're just man-made instruments of agreement and ownership for the purpose of some economic activity. The problem is allowing them to have any voice whatsoever in the affairs of government; if it's so important or beneficial to society, surely plenty of real live human beings will advocate for it.

I agree that such a switch would be a big, yet worthy project. We might well find synergistic effects, such as how well spaced solar panels reduce the heat on the ground enough to allow crops to thrive in otherwise inhospitable places.

This is a democracy; stop looking for leaders to solve your problems for you and get involved in the process to help bring those solutions about. If you don't, history has certainly shown that someone else will and their choices are not likely to reflect your interests.

 

[choomer]

I respectfully disagree. The extremely high cost of nuclear technology would tend to make decision makers very conservative in terms of the technology chosen. Uranium had been far better researched, in part because of government sponsored weapons research.
Thorium represents a big break from the known body of knowledge and so it would have been very hard to justify such a big and expensive step into the unknown.
Nuclear power is so expensive that even now it isn't cost effective. A whole new and improved- but still extremely expensive- technology based on thorium would therefore be a very hard sell.
I don't see the conspiracy here. I just see a path taken and the fork left unexplored. Keep in mind that uranium based nuclear power was touted as 'too cheap to meter' when first proposed. Once bitten, twice shy is very real when talking about billions of dollars of investment.

There is an extremely high cost to build a nuclear plant but the use of thorium (which does not need to be expensively refined into a fissionable material and is 3X's more plentiful than uranium) is being implemented by the Indian gov't.

I already posted this back on page 1 but here it is again. Please notice the underlined parts:

After the war, several of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project shifted their attention to peacetime applications of nuclear energy. Two of them, Alvin Weinberg and Forrest Murray, co-authored a paper on what would eventually evolve into the basic design for light water reactors. The authors were not remiss in noting the several drawbacks of their design, suggesting instead that a reactor operating on thorium would not face similar problems. In 1948, Weinberg became the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and he kept the research on thorium reactors going. The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was an experimental reactor that operated at ORNL from 1965 to 1969 and proved the viability of molten salt reactors.

Despite its success, the MSR programme was mothballed. The United States continued to work on the 50 quadrillion dollar discovery sporadically — such as with the experimental thorium-uranium-233 core inserted into a conventional pressurised water reactor at Shippingport in 1977 — but the results were not built upon. The reason for this, according to some such as Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, is that Washington was not interested in energy but in the production of plutonium to expand its nuclear arsenal and thorium reactors are particularly useless at supporting a nuclear weapons programme. It is only in the last decade that interest in thorium reactors in the United States has again risen but this time more among private entrepreneurs than the government.

​

I have friends who speak with nuclear engineers in a " 'round the water cooler" atmosphere at the plant.
NE's are well aware of thorium being a less expensive, risky, and waste producing technology with the same energy potential.

 

[choomer]

Not even sure how we ended up talking about Assange and Co here.
This thread is about 'free energy' vs fossil fuels...

My fault.
But I will not let go of a chance to educate someone about something they didn't already know or were mistaken about and I hope that it's a reciprocated gesture.
Sometimes the debate proves both of us mistaken and we both learn.

No such thing as free energy.
Wind, tidal, solar and geothermal energy all share no fuel cost, which means they can't help but be better than fossil fuels over time. Initial install of wind and solar is now less than building fossil fuel power and nuclear power is so expensive even the utilities building it need bailouts. It will NEVER be cost effective, period.

Yes and no.
The fuel (wind/solar) has all the aspects of the weather; most notably that the availability and potency of the fuel is transitory and changes from day to day.
The fuel (tidal/geothermal) can be dangerous to harvest (hurricanes/typhoons/Hawaii) and very expensive to build/maintain.

The only way we presently know of to harvest those fuels (a @Cx2H states earlier) are VERY expensive in resources, finances, and environment.
Wind turbines take out flocks of geese and the rare earth neodymium magnets used in their generators are hard to mine, refine, and magnetize and costs an enormous amount in energy and environmental impact.
The most efficient solar cells need a witch's brew of rare earths to manufacture and they still only provide ~20% utilization of all the power that falls upon them.
Rare earth dangers are:

"More mining of rare earth metals, however, will mean more environmental degradation and human health hazards. ALL RARE EARTH METALS CONTAIN RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS SUCH AS URANIUM AND THORIUM, WHICH CAN CONTAMINATE AIR, WATER, SOIL AND GROUNDWATER. METALS SUCH AS ARSENIC, BARIUM, COPPER, ALUMINUM, LEAD AND BERYLLIUM MAY BE RELEASED DURING MINING INTO THE AIR OR WATER, AND CAN BE TOXIC TO HUMAN HEALTH. Moreover, the refinement process for rare earth metals uses toxic acids and results in polluted wastewater that must be properly disposed of. The Chinese Society of Rare Earths estimated that the refinement of one ton of rare earth metals results in 75 cubic meters of acidic wastewater and one ton of radioactive residue. The 1998 leak of hundreds of thousands of gallons of radioactive wastewater into a nearby lake was a contributing factor to Molycorp’s (Mine in Central Valley California) shutdown in 2002."-Renee Cho "Rare Earth metals: Will We Have Enough" The Earth Institute Columbia University September 19, 2012.​

Thorium is unproven and billions away from being validated for power generation at all, nevermind actually building it. Doesn't mean it couldn't work, just that it's a long way off even if it received heavy investment.

Look above please for information contrary to that view.
Our present utilization of nuclear power is expensive, but cost has this way of allowing innovation to succeed when prior prevalent technology is no longer economically viable.

Sodium cycle nuclear was indeed built right here in Colorado and it too failed the cost effectiveness test. The station was decommissioned and converted to natural gas.

True, but it was using U235 and plutonium and not Thorium.

The only molten salt reactor using Thorium is a liquid fluoride thorium reactor.

Fusion keeps looking more and more promising but it looked promising when I was a kid in high school and I'm getting old now. It sure doesn't look cheap.

It seems to progress in fits and starts but a look here has news from 2017 and before about it.

Energy efficiency- getting the most out of the energy we do produce- does not seem to get a lot of attention but it remains the best approach to reducing our overall energy consumption footprint as more consumers come online and while we are building out renewable energy infrastructure.

True and good on ya for mentioning that other side of the equation!
That side has the same hurdles that you present w/ changing nuclear power fuels of baked in predominance and sluggish adoption of new technology.
A nice room temperature superconductor would cut electrical usage by a phenomenal amount.

Energy efficiency can do A LOT;
Passive homes are built to use so little energy that the human inhabitants and their electronic devices suffice to keep them warm- and the same insulation keeps them cool as well.

Very true and known for a good long time about earth sheltered homes, but try convincing your significant other to move into one.
Unless you have an angle on a new process for manufacturing aerogels, super insulated homes increase (at least) exterior insulated walls by a factor of 8x's and the extruded polystyrene insulation used for them comes from.....oil.
.

Modern electronics are dramatically more energy efficient than older versions. My smartphone is more powerful than my desktop, yet uses a tiny fraction of the power.

Come again? You still using a pentium PIII desktop?
If not, how is your smartphone more powerful than your desktop?

Getting serious about recycling would save huge amounts of energy by reducing the need to extract raw materials and refine them. Steel and aluminum are prime examples. Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the electricity required to extract it from ore, over a kilowatt hour per soda can. Yet America throws away- as in doesn't recycle- enough aluminum in beverage cans alone to rebuild the entire commercial airline fleet every year.

Recycling? We don't need no steenking recycling!
Actually we do, but for it to make the impact the price to NOT recycle has to hit a high point to convince the masses.
But to use the flip side of your "it costs too much" argument, if recycling waste made lots of money wouldn't there be many more companies doing it and offering to buy your garbage (or at least offering [tax]free pickup?

Transportation just passed power generation as the world's largest source of CO² emissions in the last few years. America is a big offender; most other developed Nations have or are building extensive high speed rail networks that are competitive with air travel and emit drastically less pollution. America isn't even working on it. These run on electricity and are this far cleaner than even standard trains... speaking of which, electrifying freight rail tracks in America would also save huge amounts of energy and reduce diesel emissions everywhere freight railroads go, including cities and suburbs nationwide. Again, America is bringing up the rear in this obvious, cost effective and well proven technology.
Electric cars are multiple times more efficient than gas or diesel, yet Americans are buying gas guzzlers in ever greater numbers. It would help if there were electric pickups and minivans on the market.

Cleaner yes, in a place like the PNW that has a lot of hydro-electric.
But everywhere else transportation consumption and pollution just got transferred to coal/oil/natural gas generation plants.
Trains are also not very economically viable except to/from major metropolitan areas and don't service everywhere which explains the surviving dominance of the automobile.

If you really want to give electromotive vehicles a boost, invent a battery that is lighter and packages electricity much more densely for more cycles that does not use hazardous materials.
The Edison Nickel-Iron battery (a nod to Tommy's intelligence) is the only on I know of that fits at least the long cycle life and no hazardous materials criteria, otherwise lead/acid still rules the roost for cost/effectiveness.
If you can invent that it becomes very easy and economically viable since a car can easily and inexpensively be retrofitted w/ an electric motor for each wheel (All Wheel Drive) or just replacing the engine and (maybe) transmission with just one electric motor.

This list represents the low hanging fruit. There's much more. Our country just plain sucks at energy efficiency and conservation, in large part because we insist on granting political power to the highest bidders- who in most cases are corporations and shareholders with vested interests in protecting their market share even at the cost of the greater good. That fact might be the biggest inefficiency of all.

In this one paragraph you admit you understand why "free energy" discoveries might be suppressed and also answer the question I have asked you twice that you have skirted:

Wouldn't a country that has based the value of its currency on the predominate energy source of our age use national security to safeguard the value of their currency?

 

[Fubard]

That is actually truth of the matter. Your ignorance makes you look uninformed and biased.

When he can't even get the right fucking embassy, then that tells you everything that's needed to be known.

And when you jump straight in and support his obvious ignorance without contemplating such basic errors, that tells us all we need to know about you.

 

[Fubard]

Then you haven't been educating yourself recently about his status:

"For the last eight years, the UK has refused to either confirm or deny that they have received an extradition request from the US. At the same time, they have refused to provide assurances that Julian will not be extradited to the US if such a request were to be received, and maintained an ever-present vigil of the Embassy, notwithstanding a UN directive to take steps to ensure Julian's immediate liberty," Assange's lawyer Melinda Taylor told CNN. "Their silence speaks volumes, particularly in light of recent statements from US officials that Julian's arrest and extradition are a priority."

"The concern from day one until the present is that if Julian Assange walks out of the Embassy, he will be extradited to face what the executive director of the ACLU described as an 'unprecedented and unconstitutional' prosecution under the US Espionage Act," Taylor told CNN.

In December, Assange received Ecuadorian citizenship, but the UK indicated it would not recognize his diplomatic status if requested by the Latin American nation, denying Assange the diplomatic immunity that would've allowed him to leave.

The UN, meanwhile, has twice ruled that Assange's detention is unlawful. Despite this, the judge in his most recent appeal - Emma Arbuthnot, who said "I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years."
​

Look a the very recent behavior the UK gov't has used w/ Tommy Robinson for an indicator as to their idea of jurisprudence.

But I do welcome any information you can provide to the contrary.

So nothing official then.

At least you got the right embassy this time, loonspud

 

[ttystikk]

My fault.
But I will not let go of a chance to educate someone about something they didn't already know or were mistaken about and I hope that it's a reciprocated gesture.
Sometimes the debate proves both of us mistaken and we both learn.

Yes and no.
The fuel (wind/solar) has all the aspects of the weather; most notably that the availability and potency of the fuel is transitory and changes from day to day.
The fuel (tidal/geothermal) can be dangerous to harvest (hurricanes/typhoons/Hawaii) and very expensive to build/maintain.

The only way we presently know of to harvest those fuels (a @Cx2H states earlier) are VERY expensive in resources, finances, and environment.
Wind turbines take out flocks of geese and the rare earth neodymium magnets used in their generators are hard to mine, refine, and magnetize and costs an enormous amount in energy and environmental impact.
The most efficient solar cells need a witch's brew of rare earths to manufacture and they still only provide ~20% utilization of all the power that falls upon them.
Rare earth dangers are:

"More mining of rare earth metals, however, will mean more environmental degradation and human health hazards. ALL RARE EARTH METALS CONTAIN RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS SUCH AS URANIUM AND THORIUM, WHICH CAN CONTAMINATE AIR, WATER, SOIL AND GROUNDWATER. METALS SUCH AS ARSENIC, BARIUM, COPPER, ALUMINUM, LEAD AND BERYLLIUM MAY BE RELEASED DURING MINING INTO THE AIR OR WATER, AND CAN BE TOXIC TO HUMAN HEALTH. Moreover, the refinement process for rare earth metals uses toxic acids and results in polluted wastewater that must be properly disposed of. The Chinese Society of Rare Earths estimated that the refinement of one ton of rare earth metals results in 75 cubic meters of acidic wastewater and one ton of radioactive residue. The 1998 leak of hundreds of thousands of gallons of radioactive wastewater into a nearby lake was a contributing factor to Molycorp’s (Mine in Central Valley California) shutdown in 2002."-Renee Cho "Rare Earth metals: Will We Have Enough" The Earth Institute Columbia University September 19, 2012.​

Look above please for information contrary to that view.
Our present utilization of nuclear power is expensive, but cost has this way of allowing innovation to succeed when prior prevalent technology is no longer economically viable.

True, but it was using U235 and plutonium and not Thorium.

The only molten salt reactor using Thorium is a liquid fluoride thorium reactor.

It seems to progress in fits and starts but a look here has news from 2017 and before about it.

True and good on ya for mentioning that other side of the equation!
That side has the same hurdles that you present w/ changing nuclear power fuels of baked in predominance and sluggish adoption of new technology.
A nice room temperature superconductor would cut electrical usage by a phenomenal amount.

Very true and known for a good long time about earth sheltered homes, but try convincing your significant other to move into one.
Unless you have an angle on a new process for manufacturing aerogels, super insulated homes increase (at least) exterior insulated walls by a factor of 8x's and the extruded polystyrene insulation used for them comes from.....oil.
.

Come again? You still using a pentium PIII desktop?
If not, how is your smartphone more powerful than your desktop?

Recycling? We don't need no steenking recycling!
Actually we do, but for it to make the impact the price to NOT recycle has to hit a high point to convince the masses.
But to use the flip side of your "it costs too much" argument, if recycling waste made lots of money wouldn't there be many more companies doing it and offering to buy your garbage (or at least offering [tax]free pickup?

Cleaner yes, in a place like the PNW that has a lot of hydro-electric.
But everywhere else transportation consumption and pollution just got transferred to coal/oil/natural gas generation plants.
Trains are also not very economically viable except to/from major metropolitan areas and don't service everywhere which explains the surviving dominance of the automobile.

If you really want to give electromotive vehicles a boost, invent a battery that is lighter and packages electricity much more densely for more cycles that does not use hazardous materials.
The Edison Nickel-Iron battery (a nod to Tommy's intelligence) is the only on I know of that fits at least the long cycle life and no hazardous materials criteria, otherwise lead/acid still rules the roost for cost/effectiveness.
If you can invent that it becomes very easy and economically viable since a car can easily and inexpensively be retrofitted w/ an electric motor for each wheel (All Wheel Drive) or just replacing the engine and (maybe) transmission with just one electric motor.

In this one paragraph you admit you understand why "free energy" discoveries might be suppressed and also answer the question I have asked you twice that you have skirted:

Jesus this is long. Lots I agree with and still plenty I don't. But didsized ok?

Keep in mind that if electric cars and trains are several times more efficient than fossil fuel powered equivalents then you're still coming out ahead by burning fossil fuels in power plants to make electricity to run the trains and charge the cars.

I never said thorium isn't potentially very useful, I said that we lack the infrastructure for it. Perhaps that will change.

Rare Earth materials is a bad excuse to quit making solar panels and wind turbines. Conventional cars and much more use rare Earth metals too.

Yes, my smartphone is a Samsung Note 4, quite a bit faster than my and most people's desktop. 4G and soon 5G connectivity is drastically faster, too. Strange but true.

Trains are extremely viable for intercity transit and light rail does fine in big cities. You might just be biased by American attitudes. Freight rail is a huge step forward from trucks, just ask Brazilians.

There's a lot more, let's break those book length posts down to size a bit for clarity, please.

 

[ttystikk]

When he can't even get the right fucking embassy, then that tells you everything that's needed to be known.

And when you jump straight in and support his obvious ignorance without contemplating such basic errors, that tells us all we need to know about you.

The clearest Hallmark of the low information set is their inability to imagine that others might be smarter or more informed than they are. You'll be happier watching Fix News. Wrong and misinformed, but happier.

 

[Fubard]

The clearest Hallmark of the low information set is their inability to imagine that others might be smarter or more informed than they are. You'll be happier watching Fix News. Wrong and misinformed, but happier.

So, ignoring the ignorance shown in the sentence concerned is not an issue to you?

Let's go to the basics about Arseange.

Before a Swedish female decided to reopen the allegations, he was freely walking around in London.

London is in a country known for a very "agreeable", and some say "one-sided", extradition treaty with the USA.

He was to be extradited, before jumping bail, to a country known to refuse extradition to any country, if it suspects the slightest "political" aspect to the request.

If the US wanted him then, why not just have him picked up in London first where the extradition laws are much more in their favour?

And on what charges could they arrest him in the first case?

Just answer these two questions, please.

 

[ttystikk]

So, ignoring the ignorance shown in the sentence concerned is not an issue to you?

Let's go to the basics about Arseange.

Before a Swedish female decided to reopen the allegations, he was freely walking around in London.

London is in a country known for a very "agreeable", and some say "one-sided", extradition treaty with the USA.

He was to be extradited, before jumping bail, to a country known to refuse extradition to any country, if it suspects the slightest "political" aspect to the request.

If the US wanted him then, why not just have him picked up in London first where the extradition laws are much more in their favour?

And on what charges could they arrest him in the first case?

Just answer these two questions, please.

I fear you're operating under the assumption that his case rests only on its merits when in fact there is a large component of saving face and outright retribution involved. The US government wants to make an example of him and frankly doesn't care about the legal details.