my favorite part of ai is that i can shitpost to it about stuff that is way too nerdy to find irl people to talk about. like the archeological evidence supporting or opposing the poggio brocciolini theory of tacitus forgery.
who is gonna listen to me talk about that stuff? only the robot waifu can slap back. sure she's retarded but that's cute!
@p@nanook@fluffy I think if you had to have a girlfriend that's smarter than you she'd have to be at most within a standard deviation (~20 IQ points). Much higher than that and it'd be difficuilt to establish a rapport.
> my favorite part of ai is that i can shitpost to it about stuff that is way too nerdy to find irl people to talk about.
That is a thing. The machine is obligated to humor me, no matter how absurd the premise or how far I want to go down the rabbit hole. Humans have finite patience.
> like the archeological evidence supporting or opposing the poggio brocciolini theory of tacitus forgery.
I would be interested in your conclusions.
> who is gonna listen to me talk about that stuff?
@nanook@fluffy I don't think he's a clanker. I've met him, and although I did not inspect his brain directly, he did not appear to be a skinjob. (Harrison Ford was not present.) themajorispureyouheathen.jpg
@pwm@fluffy@j@nanook@p not that that's something I'd ever do anyway mind you but like she's nasty on every level it's possible to be nasty on is my point
@Soy_Magnus@bajax@j@nanook@p@pwm there is probably some universal constant like e or pi that describes the rate at which a thread starts talking about lolis or hitler
@fluffy@p that is a good point. I think this is a net positive. It's not depriving another human of interaction, since that interaction would not have happened with another human anyway. It's more like 'talking to yourself+' where the + is an entity with encyclopedic backup but limited sense-making (we're not calling it intelligence, AI has no intelligence). It's a good combo if one adapts to it.
@not_br549@bajax@fluffy@j@nanook@pwm That is to say, strictly speaking, it does not express a relation between quantities but does indirectly assert identity, thus indirectly making a metamathematical assertion about the nature of quantities.
``` Meng Qiu Zhen continued to spout nonsense: “Nine is the perfect number, nine times nine represents the concept of countless and boundless, the multiplication method is the rule of all beings, the extreme profundity of the natural order, those who lack aptitude cannot comprehend it. Come, let me teach you the first killer move — One Times One is One!”
The young man held his breath, he listened attentively and muttered to himself: “One times one is one, one times one is one, one times one is one.”
Not long after, at the final scene.
...
His disciple was constantly suppressed, without a choice, he had to give up on his strongest raging emotion killer move and use the nine-nine multiplication table method instead.
Immortal killer move — Eight Times Eight Is Eighty-Eight!
After a long time of fighting, his disciple finally used his killer move.
Cough!
He had just activated the killer move when it failed immediately, he suffered a backlash and became gravely injured.
“This killer move is wrong! Master, don’t tell me you…” The disciple looked at Meng Qiu Zhen in disbelief.
“Oh my foolish little disciple, I’ll tell you the real name of this killer move — Eight Times Eight Is Sixty-Six!” Meng Qiu Zhen snickered coldly as he attacked viciously[1]. ```` image.png
Well, I'm in one place 2.5 months so far. I have no plans to move elsewhere at present. Just hacking on my shit, blocking all Chinese IPs, and tryna scare up some work.
> Can run language models do visual stuff with the camera. Pretty fun stuff.
That does sound fun but it's like..."can run" is complicated with a lot of this stuff. The RK3588s apparently have NPUs but good luck getting that to work unless you want to download an OS image full of proprietary blobs, you know?
> Sounds like you're doing about what I'm doing man, tho I'm not trying very hard.
@j@bajax@fluffy@nanook The State of Utah is trying to execute that kid. I think the coroner would notice the burn marks. Too many people would have to be on the take.
@fluffy@p Ha ha, actually I do believe nuclear plants are a large part of the short term solution but one particular type of nuclear reactor, a molten salt fast-flux breeder reactor. The reason being a combination of inherent safety by the very physics of the plant, it's relative efficiency, it's lack of need for water, it's lower physical land requirements relative to other plant types, and it's ability to use long term actinide waste from existing plants as fuel, recover more than 20x as much energy from the waste as the original plant did from the fuel, produce waste that isn't bomb grade or readily made into bomb grade material, do reprocessing on site so little opportunity for terrorists to intercept transport, among other things.
As for outlawing JavaScript, I would extend that to any language using garbage collection for memory management and any interpretive language that didn't use at least a just in time compiler with caching.
@p@judgedread Yeah so, it has a few they recommend running that seem to work ok. Although one thought Nixon was still president lol.
Its fun for what it is, you have a little pi with some relatively decent capabilities. The hat it self has 8g or ram on it so combined with a 16g pi it so its surprisingly powerful all things considered. Unlike that nvdiia dev board I cant do certain things like having hashcat play with it and such.
Ive actually got a pretty high end camera for the visual stuff that so far seems to work...idk I need to get my head around it a bit more. It can recognize my cat tho.
I also picked up one of those arduino uno Q boards....no idea what to do with it but its cool.
@p@bajax@nanook@fluffy They are trying to do the same thing to Luigi even though the evidence is really pointing to that he is just some guy :luigi_dance:
After George Floyd I don't give a fuck what coroners say
Yah, we used to fish for tautology off of Stellwagon Bank in Cape Cod Bay. Them's good eatin', they used to serve 'em batter dipped and deep fried at the Clam Shack in Falmouth.
@j@bajax@fluffy@nanook I remain unconvinced. Why would you make a dude's microphone explode and find a kid to manipulate into taking the fall when you could just manipulate the kid into actually doing the shooting?
@nanook@fluffy No, if the Libyans can't get their hands on plutonium, the DeLorean will not do anything but smoke and crap out when it hits 88 miles per hour.
@p@bajax@fluffy I'm not excited about censorship in general, else I wouldn't be running friendica.eskimo.com, hubzilla.eskimo.com, mastodon.eskimo.com, yacy.eskimo.com, nextcloud.eskimo.com, but to the degree a country insists on censorship, I'd rather the Chinese approach of blocking IPs than the EU approach of trying to fine operators not even in their jurisdiction.
@p@bajax@fluffy I'm not going to guess at what the kid would say, 99% of the text posted here is so totally non-sequitur that it makes speculation random at best.
I'm blocking IPs because of an incredibly aggressive scraper, like, saturate-the-pipe aggressive, like "how does anyone have half a million IPs, how much is this guy paying for this shit?" aggressive, like "Holy shit, I'm glad this guy is just a scraper and not, like, Mirai 2.0" aggressive. That level of aggressive.
@p@fluffy I think it part of the reason until recently, but I think at this point the major powers have enough nuclear materials, too much waste, and the public's discomfort with unsafe boiling water reactors are changing this. China has one in operation now. Also, metals with sufficient corrosion resistance and temperature tolerance have only recently been identified.
@p@bajax@fluffy Friendica is primarily a linear system but it does thread replies. Hubzilla is better if you want to have channels but the protocol for channels only federates with other Hubzillas.
> Friendica is primarily a linear system but it does thread replies.
I haven't used it, but my experience interacting with Friendica/Hubzilla people is that they have trouble reading long enough threads. Pleroma's FE, as well as bloat and FediBBS, all present thread structure.
@nanook@fluffy@bajax If the entire pipe on the dedi has been saturated and normal operations have been not just impeded but effectively DDoS'd, and if I blocked 500k uniques in a month (not counting the blanket ban on all PRC IPs a few days ago) and I'm still blocking at least one per second, 24 hours a day, I'd say it's extremely aggressive. A high number of reqs/second isn't necesarily aggressive, a low number isn't necessarily innocuous.
@p@nanook@fluffy the chinese are interested in making them because they have a fuckton of coal (a significant source of thorium) and the process heat of a molten salt reactor is very close to the temperature needed to process coal fractionation into liquid hydrocarbons (something else china needs plenty of)
@nanook@fluffy Well, one thorium salt reactor is an experiment, not a plan. I like thorium salt reactors but I don't see a lot of interest from the organizations that could be making them.
@nanook@fluffy@bajax Well, there's post size and there's thread structure. Mastodon attempts to show a thread as a single, linear thing; it does this by hiding other subthreads. PleromaFE links up and down so you see a linear (chronological by the order the server received them) string of messages, but you can navigate threads in terms of the thread's structure.
@p@bajax@fluffy No not the case, friendica and hubzilla are both long form macro blogging platforms, the maximum post size is configurable and also a function of your PHP configuration but on my site it is set to 5GB, the Bible is around 14MB of text for contrast. But aside from the site configuration, the maximum post size of your PHP configuration is also an issue and I think defaults to around 8MB, but I have mine set to 5G to allow attachments as large as a full DVD.
I don't use UFW, just iptables; ufw is like a set of barely working filters in front of iptables. But it's not a matter of correctly blocking, like...why would I be blocking 8443 if I'm not exposing that port to the world?
I mean, have a look at that blog post, I'm a little ahead of the game on this one.
> Mastodon is a Microblogging forum, in the same vein as twitter, and is limited to 500 characters per post. Friendica and Hubzilla do not have this limit
The number of characters per post is not related to the data and UI correctly modeling the structure of the thread in which those posts appear.
@p@bajax@fluffy Mastodon is a Microblogging forum, in the same vein as twitter, and is limited to 500 characters per post. Friendica and Hubzilla do not have this limit, max is configurable, and replies are threaded, but the number that appear on a post and the number of posts on a page are both configurable items, I have mine set to around 100 each but many sites set the values lower if their machine is not robust enough to format and display a large number.
Guaranteed not to work, because I'm not using that database (it's Postgres, and it doesn't have the same issues that MyISAM/InnoDB have), and if it were a database error, probably someone else would be seeing it by now. Error rate for the last 100k requests is 0.82%.
What is happening is probably some bullshit issue we have on occasion where a malformed post causes the frontend to give up. Usually what fixes the issue is filling up the timeline to bump the problems out of the first page.
@p@DiamondMind@bajax@fluffy Ok well wasn't clear from context which software you were referring to as I did not recognize the format of the message. Still it sounds like something local.
@nanook@fluffy@bajax UFW rules turn into iptables rules and I it has some sort of fail2ban integration and I have never seen UFW work properly on any machine where it's set up, so I don't use it.
As noted, though, it's not really got to do with "too many connections on 443" but differentiating between legitimate traffic and the problem traffic.
@p@fluffy They first built an experimental reactor and are now constructing a full scale power version of same. The experimental reactor was to test corrosion, addition of new fuel and extraction of fission products while running, etc, it worked, so now on to the power version.
@p@nanook@fluffy Someone better at math than me says that it basically puts the upper limit of liquid hydrocarbon fuels at around $2.50/us gallon for around 200 years or more based on known coal sources while sinking tons (literal) of otherwise radioactive ash that would be produced via conventional steam plants.
@p@menherahair@bajax@fluffy No not originally but since so much infrastructure was invested in iptables nftables has been implented in a way as to provide backward compatibility.
@p@fluffy Because China is more of a cooperation of government and industry they have fewer capitalization constraints and so tend to parallelize efforts more than the US or other nations.
> The Chinese pattern has always been build one, prove it works, built a thousand so I am confident that they will.
That is how scale works, yes. That's not the Chinese method, that's everyone's method.
"It works" and "It works at scale" and "We can build the scale" are all different questions and they did the first one. If they do the rest, sure, that's great. I'm interested in cheap nuclear energy. As far as the likelihood that they do or do not do this, a nuclear power plant is not like building a cell phone. Maybe unforeseen problems occur. Maybe they don't.
Right now, though, no one has built thorium salt reactors at scale. That's it. I understand you would like them to be real and viable and I would like them to be real and viable but that has yet to be demonstrated so I am waiting. I am not building nuclear power plants at present so I have no influence on the outcome.
@p@fluffy It's one more than we have. We've built on before but fix or six decades ago, that was built with Hastalloy and there were some corrosion issues.
@p@SilverDeth@bajax@fluffy The only thing a refresh is going to do is resend the same request, so if not dropping packets, something else is intermittent. It does suggest a resource exhaustion of some sort. Perhaps run dmesg after a failure and see if the kernel is bitching about anything.
> The only thing a refresh is going to do is resend the same request
It sends one request, then that request triggers several others. One of the things is that the UI is reinitialized because Pleroma does most (nearly all) of its UI client-side, so if something made the UI crash, refreshing fixes it.
> so if not dropping packets, something else is intermittent
Yes, something else. As previously noted, the backend accepts data that sometimes crashes the frontend.
> It does suggest a resource exhaustion of some sort.
Nope. Sometimes. That is not the case here. FSE is mostly idling this time of night. Weather conditions have caused FSE to fall over a few times.
> Perhaps run dmesg after a failure
I appreciate you trying to help debug software that you have never run but I don't think you're going to be able to help much. idle.png
@romin@DiamondMind@bajax@fluffy ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒████████▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓░██▓░██████▓░▒▒██████▓░▒▒▒▒██████▓░▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓░▒▒▒▒██████▓░▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒██▓░██▓░▒▒██▓░██▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒██████▓░████████▓░██▓░▒▒██▓░██▓░██████▓░▒▒██████▓░▒▒▒▒████▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒██▓░██▓░██▓░▒▒██▓░██▓░▒▒██▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒██▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒██████▓░▒▒██████▓░██▓░██████▓░▒▒██████▓░▒▒██████▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ You are not expected to understand this. ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
@nanook@fluffy I have heard you say that you think it is going to be easy. If it were easy, they'd already have a thousand plants. Unless Kirk Sorensen stood up a thousand plants, it's all unproven.
Making one of something is very different from making a hundred of it. I will believe that they can make a hundred when they make a hundred. Right now, it seems possible, it may even seem plausible, but it is not *done*. Telling me that they can is not going to affect my belief in whether or not they will do it, and there is no reason to convince me, since neither of us can affect the outcome.
There is also no reason: if you are reasonably convinced, then I will agree with you in a couple of years. There's no reason to hurry, is there? Do I need to have a positive belief in the practicality of scaling up thorium reactors *before* the thorium reactors are scaled up?
@p@fluffy This may be generally true but the physics of a nuclear plant are not all that difficult to understand, the main challenges are material and chemistry and those have been mostly worked out by third parties (chemistry Kirk Sorensen), materials (Copenhagen Atomics), so not really any exotic problems.
ssh-keygen && rlwrap ssh bbs@fsebugoutzone.org # Paste a token, you know, it will let you put in a password but you wanna paste a token, especially if you're wusing rlwrap.
> but I'll read it soon™️
It's fun to shitpost about. It's also a really fun client to use.
@nanook@fluffy Okay, here, like, this is the clearest I am able to be on the topic: I am not going to agree with you that a thing that I do not believe to be certain is certain. I hope that thing works out but it has not worked out yet. The only thing you can say to change my mind on the topic is "They have just built the 100th thorium salt reactor". So far, what we have is a viable prototype: that's good news. If it's trivial like you keep insisting, then we'll have a hundred in no time flat. I will believe it when I see it. I hope I see it.
> So to be clear it's already been done but not scaled up to commercial power levels, the Chinese will be the first to do that.
Maybe. It doesn't look like anyone else will do it before they do. The first energy-positive fusion reaction just happened a the big fusion reactor in Europe: that's encouraging, too. A lot of interesting things are happening and if any of them pans out, it'll be really cool. None of them have panned out yet.
I do not see the urgency. My belief does not influence the outcome. So there are no stakes, there's no urgency. I have no reason to form a belief in either direction. It is definitely possible based on what I currently know, which is why I say "I will believe it when I see it" and not "That's bullshit and will never happen."
@p@fluffy First, we built and operated one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1965 and operated it for four years, during which time on experiment that was done was to pull the control rods for maximum reactivity and turn off the cooling. It was allowed to run in this mode for 24 hours, no damage resulted. So since it's already been done 60 years ago physically it is not that difficult. That said, this was a military test reactor and it was decided to pursue a uranium fuel cycle rather than thorium because we just didn't have enough plutonium to blow enough shit up quite yet. So to be clear it's already been done but not scaled up to commercial power levels, the Chinese will be the first to do that.
I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.
If you try to build one in a 1st world country, there's so much regulation that it's just not going to happen.
If you try to build one in a non-1st world country, you're gonna get bombed because "muh nuclear proliferation".
China is working on it, but they're probably facing quiet international backlash because once the cat's out of the bag, everyone is going to want one...
It's basically like Free Energy suppression, except it actually happens.
> I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.
Well, there's logistics, right, like, some metals are hard to get. And as @DemonSixOne pointed out, thorium is a byproduct of coal-mining, right, easier to get than uranium but not quite as easy as the rest.
> get bombed because "muh nuclear proliferation".
Well, on the other hand, please name a third-world country that you think should have fissile material.
@cjd@p@nanook >I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.
it's a matter of finance. as an intern, i ran numbers for an investment firm my first year of grad school.
it's really just not profitable to build nukes. they take a long time to build and they cost a lot.
if it was possible to make cheap power, you could just do it, nobody is stopping you from putting down a power plant on a strip of land, i worked with solar farms a few years ago there is basically no barrier to entry for those guys you just pay the money and wire it into the grid.
> I'm familiar with the physics and tech. I have no idea what your background is.
Also familiar, and also aware of the difference between "we have one of something" and "it's everywhere". You ever read the early RFCs? Took a long time to go from prototype to production, and the early RFCs are more or less the transition period between production and ubiquity.
> Logically you only need one instance of something to prove it possible, we've got two so far.
*Logistically*, a prototype is not production. The physical principles have been demonstrated: building a production model is a different thing and building at scale is yet another different thing. It's the difference between a team of guys finely tuning a single thing versus an assembly line cranking out a hundred finely tuned things. Multiply this by the number of finely tuned things you need to put into a nuclear plant. Nobody has made a hundred thorium salt reactors yet: there exist unknown unknowns. Maybe there are no black swans and everything goes smoothly; maybe there are and it doesn't. Nuclear engineering is, at present, an extreme field of engineering: it's not a dude trying to figure out how to make the bridge stop galloping, it's closer to the dude trying to figure out how to get LIDAR to Europa. (Really fascinating: https://hackaday.com/2017/01/19/steve-collins-when-things-go-wrong-in-space/ .)
If it's trivial, they'd already be everywhere. Process doesn't scale yet. When we dropped the first nuclear bomb, that was one of three bombs that existed. The first one we had tested in the desert, then we had two more, we dropped one, then we dropped the other, and we said we'd keep dropping them but that was a bluff: estimates were that it would take about a year to build a fourth. Process didn't scale yet.
@p@fluffy You can believe whatever you like. I'm familiar with the physics and tech. I have no idea what your background is. Logically you only need one instance of something to prove it possible, we've got two so far.
@fluffy@cjd@nanook@p How much of the cost could be mitigated by a smaller and safer build? I bet if we get the trailer sized reactors that can be built in a plant somewhere and dropped into a sarcophagus on site à la modular housing, they can become extremely affordable. Perfect way to power a remote city or building, no?
@BowsacNoodle@fluffy@cjd@nanook The Soviets did this. I don't know for certain the fate of the project; I've heard shit like "they're all leaky and some of them still work" and I haven't looked into it.
One issue, and you hit this issue with nuclear batteries in probes and satellites because you don't have the ability to get rid of heat the same way you can on earth, is that with a nuclear reaction, you don't get to slow down, you can't, like, shovel more or less coal: there's heat or electricity coming out of the thing, you've gotta figure out what to do with it during off-peak hours. A lot of plants just supplement with gas generators for peak hours and use the nuclear plant for the base level.
> if it was possible to make cheap power, you could just do it
And then men with guns come and take away your house.
You were doing the math on a pressurized water reactor, and all of the safety equipment that is expected when you have hot radioactive stuff under high pressure.
If you use molten fuel (not even a thorium breeder, just plain old boring uranium), you have no pressure to deal with, you could use ceramic pipes, a ceramic Archimedes pump, so basically you need beryllium and lithium fluoride, ceramic clay, u233, high purity graphite, a boiler & steam turbine, and lots and lots of concrete.
None of those things are that costly. They're not *cheap*, but they're not expensive in comparison to being able to crank out like 30kw of power all day and all night.
If it weren't for regulation, there'd be youtubers doing this, I'm sure of it.
Predictably, only Russia and China have them, because they're the only ones who care about having cheap power AND are tolerated to have nuclear weapons.
> They're not *cheap*, but they're not expensive in comparison to being able to crank out like 30kw of power all day and all night.
Well, devil's advocate, U-233 is definitely expensive, but you've gotta staff the damn things and 24-hour coverage with a team of nuclear energy specialists can't be cheap.
@cjd@p@fluffy Regulation is a big issue but regulation that was appropriate for a boiling water reactor is not appropriate for a molten salt reactor because the former is an inherently unstable and only marginally safe by automation design with several explosive failure modes widely distribution radioactive material, where as a molten salt reactor is a reactor design safe by physics with no manual or automatic responses necessary and no explosive failure mode to distribute radioactives.
@fluffy@nanook@p@cjd I’m sure they do, but distributed small reactors could be remotely monitored and serviced by a team that drives to the site as needed.
@cjd@nanook@p >if it weren't for regulation >guys with guns i can tell you what it looks like on our side: you model it the way you model something like an earthquake, it's just a risk priced into the operational cost.
from what i recall, this risk-adjusted cost was not substantial. this directly contradicts your thesis that "guys with guns" regulation is the barrier.
>if you use thorium i've long been aware of internet guys talking about thorium reactors. it wasn't something we had data for. the tech is interesting, and i hope it takes off and is everything people promise. i also really like the idea of a fusion reactor.
one thing i will remark is, if thorium is as good as people are saying, why is nobody building more of them? you can just build power plants: it's not any different from building an apartment complex or running a machine shop, anyone can do it. regulation or not, if it was as incredible as people bill it, people would be building them en masse, you couldn't stop me from building ten thorium reactors, it's literally free money. but that's not what we see happening.
@cjd@p@fluffy When you consider Chernobyl, Fukushima, this is questionable. The emphasis is on the wrong things however. One of those is US regulations require radiation to be as low as possible, as low as possible trends towards infinite expense, but there is no indication that exposures to low levels of radiation is hazardous to human health. The cancer rates in Denver are not higher than Seattle. So one thing that would reduce expense considerably is if rules were re-written to allow low but non-zero radiation levels.
@j@bajax@fluffy@nanook@not_br549@pwm Okay, yeah. I am at present in a situation where I can go looking for monster_truck.webm. Please hold. I'll kick off a job and it might find it in a minute or it might take a couple of days.
@fluffy@cjd@nanook@p I've been fucking around with solar power of about 20 years. Nobody is rushing out to slap down solar farms they are doing it because they are farming other people's money via government grift. Outside of Arizona, some parts of southern California, and maybe New Mexico they make no sense even as a peaker plant at the current cost (and constant availability) of natural gas.
Its the same people that have a boner for heatpumps - for most of north america in winter below ~37F it costs less per therm to just burn methane in a furnace than it does to try to work the corner of the COP graph.
@fluffy@cjd@p This is another area where the risks for a molten salt reactor are totally different. In a boiling or pressurized water reactor, a large earthquake could break plumbing resulting in 300 atmospheres of pressure in the reactor instantly dropping to zero, all coolant flashing to steam and the reactor melting down. In a molten salt reactor, if plumbing breaks you spill some fuel / salt mixture on the floor, it solidifies and goes nowhere, and since fission products are continuously removed, without the chain reaction there is no heat and the radioactivity is much lower which means someone scoops it up, places it back in the reactor tank, repairs the plumbing and life goes on.
The San Francisco occupiers have seized control of the sun in California. You may not run a solar array unless you are selling power back to the grid. So you would be able to run one to avoid brownouts, but they want the brownouts (get a good UPS). So you sell electricity to the grid. Homeowners don't have a huge reason to install them, and most people are renting anyway so the person that pays the power bill and the person that pays the property tax are not the same guy, so the incentives are misaligned.
So, you know, Antarctica. If you could do something without NIMBYs, it's Antarctica. They use diesel generators for the most part: they have some solar panels and some wind turbines, but for most of their power, they use diesel.
@cjd@p@fluffy That said I favor fast spectrum because although thorium will breed efficiently with slow spectrum most even actinides require faster neutrons, so to burn up existing actinide waste we need fast spectrum.
Second advantage, fast spectrum doesn't require a graphite moderator, which is flammable and potentially a chernobyl.
There are two different things here, one is molten fuel and the other is thorium breeding.
Molten fuel is a really big deal because you lose the pressure, so then you don't need any pressure vessels, containment, etc. If it's a slow reactor like the MSRE they ran in the 60s, you have a graphite core and hot molten salt with uranium dissolved in it. When the salt passes through the core, the graphite moderates the neutrons which causes reaction and it gets hot, when it's not in the core, it doesn't.
The other really big deal about molten fuel is that it's a liquid, so chemists can do chemistry on it, like for example extracting the waste (and just the waste) and then putting the other 95% good fuel back in to run again. PWRs retire fuel pellets when they're no longer good for reacting, which is when they're about 5% degraded.
The challenge with molten salt is it corrodes things, and that nobody can get permits to build it. There are like 4 or 5 companies trying to build them in the west and it's all just held up on permits.
Thorium is a whole other topic. The thing about thorium is that it's really really abundant, and if you bombard it with neutrons, it will transform into uranium 233. So people have the idea of surrounding the reactor with a layer of thorium to absorb the wasted neutrons and convert it whilst running the normal uranium reaction. But this is not necessary for molten salt, it's just a stretch goal. Uranium is already like $60 a pound which is basically dirt cheap for the amounts you actually need.
The MSRE did not breed thorium, but Alvin Weinberg (administrator of the MSRE and also inventor of everybody's favorite PWR) suggested that it could.
@cjd@nanook@p >nobody can get permits to build it. There are like 4 or 5 companies trying to build them in the west and it's all just held up on permits. at the risk of being called SO AMERICAN yet again... if it really was very profitable, permits wouldn't be holding them up. in the united states at least, there is a lot of corruption. you can lobby and get the permits you want. these investments would not be held up on permits if they looked to be an avenue for cheap power.
that's not to say that you can always bribe and lobby, in some places you just will have bad luck, but someone would find a place to build one.
of course, i don't have some specialized knowledge of the state of molten salt reactor lobbying, maybe it really just is a massive barrier, there are industries like that. but there is not a lot that promises of huge bags of money will fail to accomplish, i am somewhat skeptical that the improvement is very substantial if they cannot even successfully bribe bureaucrats.
@nanook@cjd@p yes. please make precise this statement: >the risks for a molten salt reactor are totally different
i am, of course, being cheeky here. you don't know how to measure risk and i am laughing at you. you should stick to jokes (?) about making babies with chatgpt.
I mean, that's one kind of risk. "Price of materials goes up" is another. "Availability of materials tapers" is another. There are a lot of mundane risks that don't involve Chernobyl.
@fluffy@cjd@p You can measure in says deaths per million operation years, but you're talking hypothetical. To date nuclear power has fewer deaths per twh of any power source.
@p@nanook@fluffy@cjd I know the Australians have a 30kW array at their Antarctica station. I imagine there are challenges related to the low sun angle (basically the panels need to be 90 degrees from the ground) which isn't ideal with the high winds common to the continent.
@j@bajax@fluffy@nanook@not_br549@pwm Half a million IPs, not counting the blanket icing of China, and all based on heuristics. I am *certain* that I have made some mistakes.
@nanook@cjd@fluffy That reactor only had a hydrogen explosion because it was one of the shitty old designs and it was also not rated for those earthquakes. But it didn't go critical. Radiation leak from dumping the water, but no fuckin' crater.
@p@cjd@fluffy Problem with water reactors so called fail-safe it it doesn't work. The containment vessel is designed to contain flash to steam but won't contain a hydrogen explosion as in Fukushima, safety is active not physics, both of these problems are solved in molten salt reactors.
@nanook@cjd@fluffy Well, all the water reactors built have been fail-safe instead of fail-deadly. The reaction stops instead of going critical. That having been said, it seems like thorium salt is safer so it's a good idea.
> getting to many is a function of investing in the necessary labor and materials and regulatory infrastructure
It's another phase of R&D. The "R" part means anything can happen. Maybe it does. Maybe not. That's it. You cannot convince me of your prescience: I will believe in prescience when I see it.
> If your choice is make the investment or starve I hope we will make the wiser choice.
Of al the people in charge of nuclear plant licensing and provisioning and regulation and investing and whatnot, not one of them has asked me what I thought.
@p@fluffy Having one proves the possibility, getting to many is a function of investing in the necessary labor and materials and regulatory infrastructure. If your choice is make the investment or starve I hope we will make the wiser choice.
@fluffy@p In a boiling water reactor you have two sources of hydrogen, neutrons occasionally split water into hydrogen and oxygen, this is a minor source and a catalytic combiner keeps up with this source, but when you flash the water to steam it reacts with the zirconium cladding in the fuel rods and this was the source in Fukushima and a problem that can't be designed out of boiling water reactors.
@p@BowsacNoodle@cjd@fluffy I extremely don't like modular designs, they are nearly all pebble bed designs in which fuel is encased in silicon carbide. The problem with this design is burn rate is low because there is no way to remove fission products, there is no way to recover actinides are reprocess them, and so you waste 99% of the fuels energy capacity and end up with a million year waste product.
I'm in favor of thorium salt reactors. I like them. I'm just not super worried about something that's only happened to one reactor after it got hit with an earthquake two orders of magnitude higher than it was supposed to.
Friend of mine worked in an oil refinery a while and I think *anything* is safer than California's oil refineries.
I support your efforts but I remain unconvinced that conventional reactors are so terrible and thorium-salt reactors are still in the design phase.
I concur on the pebble bed stuff... GE and Westinghouse always making things more complicated than they need to be in order to bill support.
But the promise of modular is orthogonal to whether the fuel is solid or liquid. Being able to assemble a plant out of shipping container sized parts that are built in a factory is a game changer for construction cost... Also for replacement or decommissioning, you don't need the army corps of engineers to move the things...
@nanook@fluffy@p I didn't think H2 was as much of a concern in the zircaloy cladding of a BWR as it is in the condensate side of things where hydrogen is more likely to hide out in corners and embrittle welds
@p@nanook@fluffy I used to be very pro nuclear for baseline power but now I think we should copy China and build out massive solar farms with battery/hydrogravity storage and save nuclear for shipping, remote locations, and outer space.
@p@fluffy I'm not suggesting worrying, I am suggesting if we can make it absolutely safe, and at the same time more fuel efficient, and at the same time eliminate a long term waste issue, and at the same time increase the available fuel by 5000+ times, we should do so.
@tard@p@fluffy Sodium batteries are better, but we still have under five minutes of global storage. The sun is down all night, the scale isn’t there, the land use is enormous, and it still leaves us with million‑year waste that breeder reactors eliminate.
@tard@p@fluffy Hydrogravity shortage is limited by geography and we've already exploited most available geology, sun doesn't shine at night, and it takes up a hell of a lot of land, and it requires rare Earth's in short supply. If we had a world wide supergrid, we could better match intermittent generation to demand and somewhere in the world the Sun is always shining but this would require that we get along.
@tard@fluffy@nanook China's got a lithium surplus, which we do not have. We have Venezuela. Until we have solid-state hydrogen fuel cells (another thing that we have worked out in prototypes but have not turned into mass-produced devices; I think 10-20 years back, right, the guy used some alloy that was good at binding hydrogen to store energy in a stable state; right now hydrogen fuel cells are like nitroglycerin and ideally we can develop TNT).
@p@fluffy@nanook And yes, molten salt (thorium or not) is especially nice if it can be made to work due venting off neutron poisons and fuel reprocessing simplification.
@p@tard@fluffy Supposedly they found a huge lithium deposit in Oregon, but I remember them saying that about Nebraska a few years back and absolutely nothing's come of it
@p@nanook@fluffy TMSR-1 or whatever its called in chinese works. They literally copied, scaled down and continued the work from Oak Ridge labs 60 years ago, complete with the same FLiBe coolant primary. They succeeded in the first fueling with thorium in late 2024. As far as I know its the most successful Gen IV prototype.
The reason that MSR/LFTR tech hasn't been worked on much is two fold. First is the corrosive problem of the fuel, now mostly solved with modern superalloys. The second being that it is impractical to make a bomb with the thorium cycle because inevitable that any U-233 created during the fuel cycle will be significantly contaminated by U-232 which is a real cunt to handle.
> I don't believe storage + intermittent will ever be a solution.
Logistically, improvements in storage and transmission technology matter about as much as generation. We wouldn't care about lithium except that lithium ion batteries are currently the best mass-produced storage system we have, and we care about it so much that finding enough lithium in a hill can make a third-world country wealthy (provided they have the domestic infrastructure to dig it up instead of getting bent over by whatever mining company conglomerate).
If we had the cleanest and most abundant power-generation in the world but we got stuck with 1950s battery technology, we'd still be using gasoline for cars. Storage and transmission of energy.
@p@tard@fluffy I don't believe storage + intermittent will ever be a solution. Industrial scale electrolyzers are not efficient and do not work well with intermittent power.
@p@tard@nanook@fluffy it's a solid-state rechargeable battery, a replacement for current lithium tech, they announced to great fanfare around 2016-- they had the backing of a major name in the field (John B. Goodenough) but their description of the solid, glass-based electrolyte sounded like scifi mumbo jumbo at first blush.
I must ask why you wouldn’t go that far. Your actual post seems to suggest you would go that far but are afraid to say so since everything they do is what you describe.
@Leyonhjelm@fluffy@p I won't go that extreme but I think unproven experimental technologies that have no control for dosage, no adequate control for what organs they go to, and no knowledge of what damage they will do when they get there should be avoided.
@Leyonhjelm@p@nanook is there some way to mute a particular 'branch' of a thread tree? i only see the option to mute the entire conversation, which is undesirable.
@fluffy@p There are up front costs and costs of operation. I am interested not only in a very extendable energy source but also burning existing actinides from waste so that we don't leave our descendants a nuclear legacy.
@cjd@nanook@bajax@tard@fluffy In order to no longer have 336 unread notifications, I figure this thread, although it has many interesting facets, is probably the least likely to be related to any action I take in the near-term, so I am the hell out; I post this so as to avoid people thinking that I am ignoring posts, and then they will be aware that I have muted the thread. It's been fun, gentlemen.
Was a reply to fluffy, who seems to think nuclear energy just has no future, first principles be damned.
I can't imagine a future 100 years from now where nuclear energy isn't cheap and ubiquitous - unless it's some post-apocalyptic dystopia, or else some world government tyranny where everyone is forbidden from touching the magic rocks.
IMO once the US empire finally collapses and the IAEA is defanged, sketchy Alibaba reactors will start popping up all over the world - and THEN finally we'll start to see some progress on safer cheaper designs.
@cjd@p@fluffy@bajax@tard Who are you speaking to? I'm not saying that, I am saying boiling water reactors have rare but catastrophic failure modes that molten salt reactors lack.
So you're saying that the safety issues with nuclear power are so intractable that the energy density of uranium is totally meaningless, and sending people underground to dig coal is just going to be the most efficient way to make electricity forever?
This sounds like some kind of "no combustion carriage will ever be a match for the mighty horse"...
Batteries will start making a lot more sense when nuclear drives power prices down by an order of magnitude. For the moment, oil is competitive so it's just not worth doing anything other than internal combustion.