Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on November 8, 2018

Bookmark and Share

Why We Need Innovative Nuclear Power

Why We Need Innovative Nuclear Power thumbnail

In 2006, Bill Gates and I took a hard look together at all the options humanity has for powering the 21st century. At that time, 81 percent of the world’s primary energy—the raw form, before it is converted to electricity, gasoline, etc.—came from fossil fuels. Back then, you might recall, oil prices were soaring. Many analysts were actually quite worried about “peak oil” and coming shortages if growing demand outran shrinking supplies.

It was already obvious in 2006 that the world is not going to halt global warming, ocean acidification and air pollution just by conserving energy. Roughly a billion and a half people were then living without electricity—but they certainly wanted and needed it. World population was growing. In much of the world, people were living longer and better. They were buying more cars and using more home heating and air conditioning. All of this was set to continue, and all of it would demand more energy.

Solar and wind power and biofuels were growing fast, and that was great. But I could already see major limitations looming ahead: the huge amounts of land needed, the lack of scalable ways to match their inconstant power to society’s unremitting thirst for energy. Anyway, plenty of good minds were already working on improving those kinds of renewable energy.

But there seemed to be a huge opportunity to rethink nuclear power. Most of the reactors operating around the world—including the ones at Fukushima and almost all of the 100 or so plants operating in the U.S.—were built from designs drafted during the slide-rule era and adapted from reactors used on aircraft carriers and submarines.

Researchers in academia and at national labs had explored lots of promising alternative approaches. They had published—in some cases even prototyped—improved designs that don’t rely on high-pressure steam or water for cooling, that use uranium far more efficiently and that make power more cheaply. Nuclear engineers could now exploit tremendous computing power to simulate novel designs and identify the best ideas without having to actually build test reactors.

Yet the nuclear industry had largely lost its spirit of innovation. Utilities were exploiting new technology to make existing reactors more reliable than ever. But generations had passed with hardly any qualitatively new kinds of reactors making it to market.

I couldn’t help but wonder: what would happen if we put state-of-the-art computing in the hands of some of the world’s best nuclear physicists and then gave them a high bar to clear and a short deadline to do it? Could they invent a new kind of nuclear power plant where safety would be guaranteed by the basic laws of physics? One that would generate much less waste—or better yet, burn existing waste? A plant that slashes operating costs and avoids worries about nuclear proliferation? Just imagine how that could change the world.

It seemed worth a shot. So with the backing of Bill and a few other bold investors, we launched TerraPower and dove in to the hard work of trying to make this real.

Now here we are, 12 years later, in 2018. What’s changed?

On the bright side, TerraPower and a number of other nuclear startups have thrived and are well on their way toward building first-of-a-kind reactors. A 2015 report by Third Way, a think tank, identified nearly 50 companies and organizations working on advanced reactor projects. This momentum has drawn a large influx of young engineering talent into the field.

But we need to accelerate the pace of progress. Since 2006, the biggest breakthrough in energy technology was not the one we were looking for. It’s called fracking, and it has made natural gas cheap and kept oil affordable, while wreaking havoc on electricity markets to the detriment of cleaner alternatives.

Meanwhile, global warming lurches ahead. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. So do solar and wind power. But do you know how much of the world’s primary energy comes from fossil fuels today? It’s 81 percent—the same as in 2006.

Humanity’s appetite for fossil fuels has grown—not shrunk—despite all the new solar and wind farms and all the new LED bulbs and hybrid cars, because we just keep using more energy every year. The amount of energy consumed by an average person in China (averaged over the year) has jumped by a quarter since 2006, to three kilowatts (kW). That’s six times as much as the energy use of an average African, which is a mere 0.5 kW. But it’s still less than a third as much as the American average, which at 9.2 kW is equivalent to nine toasters, running 24/7.

Here’s why it’s so crucial that we develop better nuclear that we can all live with: before this century is out, there’s good reason to believe that we’ll see almost everyone in the world consuming energy at least as fast as Americans do now. That includes the 1.1 billion people who lack electricity altogether today.

In many ways this would be the realization of a shared dream, because energy is the fulcrum that gives leverage to human ingenuity. Universal access to energy is arguably the most essential ingredient to ensuring that every child can live a healthy life of dignity and realize his or her human potential.

Some people argue that it would be disastrous for the currently poor parts of the world to ramp up their energy use. I find that argument morally reprehensible. Who are we to say that our lifestyle is fine for us but not for others?

Morality aside, the economic development of countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa is unstoppable in the long run. History shows that societies organize themselves and their institutions to keep standards of living rising, and this drives energy consumption inexorably upward over the long term.

If I’m right, then humanity’s energy challenge is far larger than most people understand. Raising the global average energy use from 2.4 kW, where it stood in 2017, to the current U.S. level of 9.2 kW per capita means nearly quadrupling energy production. And if all that new energy isn’t made with near-zero carbon emissions, the climate will be a wreck.

The challenge is probably even greater than this. Humanity is now around 7.5 billion people. The U.N. Population Division forecasts that our species will number 10 to 13 billion by century’s end. Ten billion of us using energy at current U.S. rates works out to a fivefold increase in global energy production over what we make today. Ironically, one of the strongest factors in reducing population growth rates is prosperity, which is highly correlated with energy use.

Of course, the current U.S. average of 9.2 kW isn’t carved in stone either. As we continue to innovate, some technological advances boost the energy efficiency of existing devices. But there are limits to those improvements. And innovation also creates new uses for energy.

As you read this, for example, millions of computers are humming along in vast data farms built by Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft just waiting for you or someone else to access them over the internet. A generation ago, nobody would have forecast server centers as major energy users. But today Google consumes as much energy as all of San Francisco, and energy consumption by data centers in Virginia is huge and growing at 18 percent a year.

If that fivefold increase in global energy use—or even a fraction of it—materializes, it won’t be possible to meet the demand and avoiding trashing the atmosphere without taking full advantage of nuclear energy. But we would be foolish to rely on the nuclear technology of the slide-rule era. No other industrial sector would do that.

This why it is imperative that we turbocharge the pace of innovation in nuclear power. TerraPower is just one of dozens of startups around the world that are now exploring new and better kinds of reactors: big ones, tiny ones, some that float and some that operate underground. Several of these innovative designs could burn existing nuclear waste and the byproducts of uranium enrichment.

It’s too early to say which ideas will succeed. I hope all of them do. But it is clear that the need is global, and the market for winning technologies will be huge. Governments and investors would be smart to place many bets. We need to increase the odds that at least one will pay off wildly—and soon.

Scientific American.

108 Comments on "Why We Need Innovative Nuclear Power"

  1. JuanP on Thu, 8th Nov 2018 6:52 pm 

    To the board. Davy has been constantly insulting me and falsely accusing me of stealing his identity for weeks and I held back out of consideration for others, but I intend to fuck with him until next year now. Sorry for what’s coming. You can blame Davy for it as he is 100% responsible. Thank Davy for it!

  2. Davy on Thu, 8th Nov 2018 7:02 pm 

    juan got his clock cleaned and now he is stuttering. He posted the same thing above today 5 times. What a nutcase.

  3. JuanP on Thu, 8th Nov 2018 7:18 pm 

    Davy, considering that nobody has ever exhibited more mental diarrhea here than you that latest projection of yours is truly funny. You have been repeating the same deluded American exceptionalist nonsense here for how many years now? And what about your broken record about China, Russia, Irna, and Venezuela. You are a propaganda mouthpiece for the largest terrorist organization in the country (I will clarify for Americans that I am talking about the US government; the rest of the world knows and understands this, only Americans need to be told because they are living in denial). Proud to be an American terrorism apologist, Davy?

  4. makati1 on Thu, 8th Nov 2018 7:25 pm 

    JuanP, you painted a perfect picture of our board delusional, insane, immoral Missouri Jackass. He is why the US is going down. Too many like him are still allowed to roam the streets of America. America, the terrorist capital of the world. Hypocrites all!

  5. Cloggie on Thu, 8th Nov 2018 11:04 pm 

    Back on topic…

    Last week certain (economic) rightwing circles in Holland began to push for nucleair power once again:

    Argument: climate change.

    According to a recent poll, 54% is in favor or more nuclear (“clean”), 35% against (including me): “nuclear waste”.

    The chances that a new nuclear powerstation is going to be build in Holland are small:

    – takes 15 years to build
    – high cost: 10 billion euro
    – recent bad experiences in Finland and UK with huge cost overruns
    – who is going to build it? Large power companies are not interested, afraid as they for political fickleness. They remembered all too well what happened to the coal-based stations: premature closure.

    For the immediate future this is the name of the game:

    If by 2030 the storage problem hasn’t been solved, maybe neclear will get a 2nd chance.

  6. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 12:23 am 


    U GO GIRL!!!!

    You are in desperate need of getting ur pussy fucked. It would do wonders for ur frame of mind.

    I would be pleased to pump ur pussy, if you will agree to have our children.

  7. Gary Gilmore on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 6:18 am 

    Will the moderator of this site please delete these comments that are personal attacks that offer no insights or relevance to the posted topic? This is one of my favorite sites but this name calling is getting out of hand.

  8. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:00 am 

    Compressed air vehicles are a surprisingly expensive option for even short range transport.

    My recent work on hydraulic pipelines suggests to me that these are a good option for energy efficiency freight transportation in a more energy constrained world. However, they are only really suitable for transport between hubs at major industrial and population centres. We would then need short range trucks to transport the freight to and from the hubs to customers; distances of perhaps 10-20km in European countries. So a single hydraulic hub would serve an entire city like London, Paris, Rotterdam, say, with short range vehicles taking freight to the surrounding area.

    For powering freight transport over these distances, there are a lot of options. Pure battery electric is a workable option, with BEV trucks having range of up to 100km. But batteries have high embodied energy, require scarce chemical resources, wear out after about 1000 charge discharge cycles and take many hours to recharge. So I looked into compressed air. Here is what I found.

    Road vehicles using carbon steel roller bearings are able to achieve rolling friction factors of about 0.016. So to pull a tonne of weight, a minimum of 16 Kg-force (160N) is needed. To pull one tonne over 1km therefore implies a minimum energy expenditure of 160KJ. I am going to assume that for transport of tens of tonnes of freight, the combined effects of air resistence and vehicle deadweight roughly doubles that. When other energy losses are in charging and discharging are accounted for; let’s say energy cost is 0.5MJ per tonne-km.

    A vehicle carrying 30 tonnes of freight would consume 15MJ of compressed air per km travelled. If we assume a 20km range (i.e. it can charge at both stops); some 300MJ of compressed air energy would be needed. Let us assume that compressed air is stored at 30bar. A single cubic metre of air at 30bar pressure contains 10.2MJ of energy. So the vehicle must carry an air tank with volume 29.4m3. A cylindrical tank 2.5m in diameter would have a length of 6m. Just about doable.

    How much would it cost? The cost of a pressure vessel scales roughly linearly with both pressure and volume. There are some weak scale economies. Looking online, I find that a 200PSI, 120gallon (13.6bar, 550litre) tank costs 860US$. Scaling for a vessel with 53.45 times the volume and 2.2 times the pressure rating, gives me a cost of about $100,000. Looking at commercial ads; that is about the going cost of a heavy trailer truck. So on the face of it, a compressed air powered truck would have twice the capital cost! Of course, compressed air engines are simple, light and cheap, so this may compensate somewhat. And steel pressure vessels may have effective lifetimes of many decades. But still, the capital cost of a compressed air truck would be formidable, for a vehicle with much poorer range performance.

  9. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:07 am 

    This is an unmoderated forum. There is a moderated forum for members here at PO dot com. The fact that it is unmoderated has its good and bad points. It allows a large spectrum of opinions and ideas for those who can wade through the dirt to find the good nuggets of truth. It is a place for tough debate and character testing. Leave your pride at home. If you stand up for what you believe in you may be punished. The bad side of unmoderated is obviously those with mental and personality problems that selfishly use a board like this for personal ends. This forum has now descended into its lowest period with dropping participation by high quality members. I have not seen it this bad since coming here 6 years ago. It is being populated by extremist that are off topic or obsessed with personality games. The emphasis should be on ideas with vigorous debate on topic with energy as its sphere of debate. I am not sure how long this situation will go on with identity theft and fake names (socks). It has become so extreme even those who are pretty tough characters have lost interest in being here. My personal view is this will pass too. The culprit who has taken this board down to its lowest low will move on. I say this because it takes a lot of energy to produce bad behavior and generally these low lifers are lazy and impatient. I have been here going on 6 years daily, yes, daily. Some may criticize this but my interest is mental workouts and character building. I consistently do physical workouts. This is part of my workout routine too. I have had 6 extremist at once come at me and they did not force me off. This has happened more than once. They hate me and they form gangs for group censorship. They hate me because I stand up for my people, my nation, and my point of view. I moderate poor comments that cannot stand up to vigorous debate. Anyone who thinks they can use this space for extreme propaganda that is weak on facts better be well prepared. I think this is good policy and I too want my comments to be vetted by serious debate. We will see how long this forum lasts unmoderated. The owners may decide to moderate it or shut it down. In this age of censorship and intense propaganda I personally feel an unmoderated forum like this should be protected. Its problems should be worked out by its regular members. Members who contribute their time and effort to making it a source of ideas and debate. It is a reflection of our world today and as such a canary in a coal mine.

  10. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:10 am 

    Antius what about the safety of compressed air? Large tanks under high pressure sound dangerous.

  11. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:30 am 

    Not me above obviously.

    I personally have destroyed this board. This should be a place where people can freely exchange opinions and ideas without being attacked. I alone have decided that my opinions are nuggets of truth while those whose opinions I do not agree with should be subjected to censorship by me. I have driven numerous people from this board over the years because I cannot handle anybody saying anything I do not like. The few times that I have left the board alone over the years it has been pleasurable for everyone else involved.

  12. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:39 am 

    Thermal energy powered vehicle

    One option I have kicked around in the past is stored thermal energy as a power source. A vehicle would carry two insulated tanks. One would contain wax, with a melting point of about 80C, with a heat of fusion of 270KJ/kg. The other would contain a tank of highly saline water, with a melting point of -40C and heat of fusion 430KJ/kg. Average across the two is 350KJ/kg. A vapour cycle heat engine would run between the two tanks. At these temperatures, Carnot efficiency would be 34%. Let us say, the engine achieves 70% of the Carnot efficiency, 23.8%. A 20km range would require some 3.6tonnes of phase change material, occupying a volume of ~5m3 including insulation.

    We would charge the vehicle from stationary tanks of stored hot and cold phase change material at each stop. A stationary heat pump would pump heat from a cold tank into a hot tank, when renewable energy was available. A brine solution would transfer heat between the stationary and vehicle tanks during recharging, both of which would contain heat exchangers. Assuming that both engine and heat pump achieve an efficiency and coefficient of performance that is 70.7% of Carnot efficiency, then total cycle energy storage efficiency will be 50%.

    Advantages: Much lower capital costs than compressed air, with about the same energy density and comparable whole cycle energy efficiency. Recharging times are short – comparable to IC vehicles. The high volumetric energy density of phase change materials (~100kWh/m3) means that the stationary heat pump can operate on intermittent energy – i.e. excess wind and solar power, simply by scaling up the storage tank volume.

    Disadvantages: Low energy density compared to fossil fuels – realistically about 1% of the mass energy density of diesel. So this option is only suitable for short range vehicles with range <100km. Also, the need for heat transfer between the phase change materials and the working fluid, may limit the effective engine power-to-weight.

  13. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:05 am 

    “Antius what about the safety of compressed air? Large tanks under high pressure sound dangerous.”

    This is largely the reason for compressed air tanks being so expensive. Safety factors must be at least 3; they are made from low-carbon allow steels, so that when they do fail, the failure is ductile and does not generate fragments. They must also undergo cold pressure tests to ~150% working pressure and welds must be subject to non-destructive testing. Safety comes at a price.

    The increased cost of an air powered vehicle is a nuisance, but need not be a show stopper if it achieves a good load factor. A brief economic analysis. Let’s say a 30 tonne capacity truck takes an hour to load, unload and recharge at each end. Average journey lengths are 20km and journey times are 0.5 hours in each direction. Let us also assume it carries freight in both directions. It provides 20 tonne-km of transport per hour and 123,000 tonne-km per year, assuming a 30% down-time for repairs. Assume that the tank costs $100,000 and we pay $10,000 per year in amortisation cost. The tank adds $0.08 per tonne-km, or about $3.2 per tonne to the delivery cost of freight at both ends. That is about one third of a cent for an item weighing 1kg.

    All the same, there are probably more versatile options than compressed air.

  14. John Wayne Gacy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:09 am 

    Gary Gilmore,

    If this is “one of your favorite sites”, why have you never commented until now?

  15. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 9:07 am 

    Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:30 am

  16. Sissyfuss on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 9:14 am 

    Antius, I don’t understand your commentary describing the melting point of the saline water at -40C. Is that a typo or you describing conditions in Siberia?

  17. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 9:40 am 

    “Antius, I don’t understand your commentary describing the melting point of the saline water at -40C. Is that a typo or you describing conditions in Siberia?”

    No typo. If you put a lot of salt in water (i.e. calcium chloride) the melting point can be reduced to -60C because the ions disrupt the formation of hydrogen bonds. This is a very cheap phase change material that can be contained in steel or plastic tanks. Pure water freezes at 0C, obviously. Using ethyl glycol, freezing point can be lowered to -40C.

    Some compounds such as chlorates will lower freezing point even further. It is now known that there are liquid brines on Mars with temperatures as low as -80C.

  18. Cloggie on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 10:44 am 

    It was Antius who directed my attention towards a fascinating Swedish project regarding e-roads, enabling e-vehicles to have far smaller batteries than the present day 400 kg monsters. The first test results are in and are encouraging:

    Note that it is not necessary to equipe every road with a rail, it suffices to cover the main roads outside the city only. A sort of trolleybus system for cars and trucks.

  19. I AM THE MOB on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:21 am 


    Why dont you allow any comments and that scummy ass blog of yours..I can tell you are white by the platform you used to create that ugly thing..

    You have to create your own sources to convince yourself of what you want to believe uncritically..And nobody is allowed to challenge it ie confirmation bias.

  20. I AM THE MOB on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:23 am 


    There will be an oil shortage in the 2020’s, Goldman Sachs says

    Uh oh ugly CHAD!

    Your chickens are coming home to roost!


  21. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:23 am 

    Renewable energy, collectivism and tribalism

    Lazard (2017) reports that the levelised cost of energy for wind and solar are about $45/MWh. That assumes both operating under optimum conditions; high insolation and high wind speeds, respectively. In northern Europe, wind offers far better EROI as an energy source than Solar PV. Wind is about the cheapest electricity source on a per kWh basis in northern Europe. With large multi-megawatt turbines built in large numbers with common grid connections; we can achieve some of the cheapest electricity in the world.

    Unfortunately, this rosy picture falls to pieces when we attempt use intermittent renewable electricity to provide carbon-free, baseload electricity supply. This is due to the capital cost of energy storage plants (which is essentially, a whole extra power station) and the exergy losses in storage. For renewable energy to provide energy services at the sort of cost that we have grown accustomed to, we must figure out ways of either storing energy very cheaply or adapting to intermittent supply. There are solutions that allow us to do both, but they generally imply a different way of life.

    Some options already discussed are thermal energy storage (hot and cold) both as end use and in electricity storage; demand management in industry; and hydraulic pipeline transport of freight over long distances; the use of trains and buses, rather than cars, for human transport. All of these options allow us to adapt to a more intermittent energy supply without excessive storage costs and can in some cases, allow for reduced energy costs through improved efficiency.

    On a domestic level, an important option available to us is cohousing. This is a generic description of a living arrangement in which a number of families share common assets, facilities and generally pool resources. This is useful in many ways but is especially so in allowing society to adapt to intermittent energy. Aside from transportation, about 80% of the energy consumed by society is consumed as heat. We use this for all sorts of things, from smelting ores; speeding up chemical reactions; melting metals and plastics for moulding; drying; curing; cooking; heating water and space heating. Refrigeration is a heat application as well, since we are using energy to maintain a lower, rather than higher temperature.

    When we heat or cool a volume of air, water or some other material; heat is stored as vibrational energy within that material. If there is a temperature difference between that material and the outside; heat will be lost by conduction, radiation and convection. We can slow down the rate of heat loss by suppressing convection (i.e. dividing houses into rooms and keeping doors closed); by insulation (loft, cavity wall, storage heater, etc.) and by painting walls with low emissivity coatings. Heat loss is a function of surface area, whereas heat stored is a function of volume. Double the size of a building (or anything) and its surface area will increase 4 times, whereas its volume will increase 8 times. That means that all other things being equal, any hot object will cool down only half as fast if you double its size. Also, if you insulate a building or hot tank, you will only need half as much insulation per unit of volume if you double the size (i.e. diameter). Heat is generally the cheapest form of energy to store, as it can be stored in bulk materials such as masonry and water at high volumetric energy density. And since most of the energy we use is consumed as heat anyway, if we need to store energy, it makes sense to store it in its end use form, i.e. hot water in a tank for washing.

    How does this relate to cohousing? Renewable energy is intermittent. It is not unusual for low pressure systems to settle over a country like Britain, reducing wind speeds to very low levels for a week or more. It is even more common for wind to drop to low levels for a period of a day or more. Since most of the energy we consume is used as heat, one way of dealing with this problem is to store the heat we need for cooking, hot water and space heating, in insulated tanks. Simply by increasing the size of living spaces, the amount of heat needed per unit volume of living space is also reduced. The problem is that this cannot really work at the level of an individual house. To store enough heat from the summer to keep a house warm throughout the winter would require a hot water tank as big as the house, with insulation at least 1m thick. The same law would apply to the heat we needed for hot water. We could in principle store heat needed for cooking in hot bricks at 200C. However, if we did this for just one house, the amount of insulation needed to store the heat for days or more, would be excessive.

    The solution is to cluster multiple households into the fabric of a single building. The heating energy needed for each household declines and it can be drawn from a common insulated thermal store serving multiple apartments. The same is true for hot water, which can be stored within a single large tank. Cooking can be accomplished either by all households sharing a single large cooker with attached insulated thermal store in a shared dining area; or by designing the building such that individual apartment kitchens back onto a shared thermal store, with heat piped into cookers built into the wall of the store. During periods of high wind energy, heat pumps and heating elements will be activated, recharging the thermal stores within the building. During periods of low energy, non-heat applications, such as lighting, television, etc. can be met by running heat from the cooking store at 200+C through a small steam engine, dumping waste heat into the hot water tank.

    The more collectivised a cohousing arrangement is able to be; the more successful it will be in lowering the cost of living. The idea would work best if items such as washing machines, showers, baths, cookers, etc. could be shared between multiple households in common areas. Ideally, the individual households would come to look upon each other as members of an extended family, much as people once did in small villages. For that to happen, people need to have plenty in common, in terms of shared beliefs, rituals, traditions, language, race and ethnicity. They need to trust each other. The cohousing idea is inherently tribalistic.

  22. JuanP on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:29 am 

    Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:30 am”
    Stop making false accusations, Exceptionalist. You are a liar and a bully. Unlike you, I was working at 7:30 am.

  23. Cloggie on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:36 am 

    Why dont you allow any comments and that fantastic blog of yours

    Simple, I have no time to keep stray dogs like you from shitting on my carpet:

    Millimob (graphic):

  24. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:37 am 

    “It was Antius who directed my attention towards a fascinating Swedish project regarding e-roads, enabling e-vehicles to have far smaller batteries than the present day 400 kg monsters. The first test results are in and are encouraging”

    Will look at this in detail later on. I made a few estimates of capital costs a while back. They are affordable for most countries, provided the electrification infrastructure is limited to highways. Given that battery costs are reduced 90%, total cost to society is much lower using an electric road solution. That is why railways don’t use battery powered trains.

    The main problem with grid connected propulsion is spikes in grid demand. Traffic tends to peak at specific times.

  25. I AM THE MOB on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:38 am 


    You consider free speech to be dog shit?

    Typical right wing bigot..and proud of it..

  26. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:41 am 


    Stop making false accusations, Exceptionalist. You are a liar and a bully. Unlike you, I was working at 7:30 am.”

  27. Cloggie on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 11:52 am 

    Typical right wing bigot..and proud of it..

    Millimob’s tribe doesn’t try to hide its intentions anymore:

    “We can replace them”
    (read: white people in general).

    Written by a (((Michelle Goldberg)))

    That’s what you get if you don’t have enough vigor to put them on a train to the East: you simply lose your country to hostile strangers, who were brought into the country to be used later as a weapon against you.

    Now white America is in for some major league suffering itself as a little Danke schoen! for the good services said white America provided to their present and future tormentors, in the endless sequence of wars since 1917.

    Pray to the Good Lawd that the Europeans will come to your aid. Not that you would deserve it.

  28. Cloggie on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 12:01 pm 

    The main problem with grid connected propulsion is spikes in grid demand. Traffic tends to peak at specific times.

    In Siberia life comes to an absolute standstill for 6 months per year or more. People stay indoor 24/7, even stay in bed, read, play games, knit, cook, etc. No opportunity for driving whatsoever. Life goes on regardless. Perhaps we have to get used to not being able to consume kWh’s, miles, etc, at will all the time. Life gets “intermittent”. So what.

    One effective way to combat traffic jams is (driver-less?) car sharing:

    Would reduce traffic pressure immensely. Simply forbid private car ownership.

  29. Father Sullivan on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 12:02 pm 


    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

    Do you remember how long it has been since your last confession Davy? God does not forget.

  30. Cloggie on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 12:19 pm 

    Back-of-an-envelope calculation of the cost of an e-road system:

    The producer Elways claims that the cost per kilometer for 2 lanes is less than 1 million dollar.

    Go to Google maps to verify that from Malmoe in the South to Galivare in the North is 1740 km over road. Two parallel North-South roads exist, that’s 3500 km at a varying distance of 50-150 km. Add some East-West legs to connect these two roads and you arrive at perhaps 5,000 km or less than 5 billion $ to electrify your roads. Sweden has 10 million, so that would be 500 $/capita. That’s doable. Note that autonomous driving will relieve the population of owning a car, reducing the per mile cost with a factor of 4-10 according to this study:

  31. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 1:11 pm 

    Father Sullivan on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 12:02 pm Davy,
    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

  32. I AM THE MOB on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 1:32 pm 


    You are full on mental illness..

    The same reason you wont allow comments on your blog is the same reason you wont get your WW2 theories verified by an independent expert..

    You can lie all you want on here but you can’t lie to yourself..

    The truth fears no questions..

  33. I AM THE MOB on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 2:05 pm 

    BREAKING: President Trump was reportedly involved in “nearly every step” of hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, raising the possibility that he violated campaign finance laws. -WSJ

    It’s Mueller time!

  34. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 2:57 pm 

    $1million per lane km is in line with previous estimates I have seen for railway electrification. So it sounds about right. Though I have seen estimates a decade in either direction.

    For the UK, with its 14,000km of motorway; electrifying one lane in either direction would cost $30bn, or $500 per person. So we can take that as an average for most European countries. For big capital investments, it is normal to assume a 10% amortization per year. Including maintenance costs, which ramp up with time; maybe $50 per capita per annum, as a constant cost. So, electrifying road transport would cost about 0.1% GDP for a west European country. If we roll it out Europe wide, it might actually save us money long-term, because electricity isn’t something we need to import.

    A few thoughts about the Swedish project. It is a low voltage DC, ground level electrification scheme – a lot like third rail on railways. The rail is embedded in a slot in the road. Problems this might face. Like third rail, it would suffer a high rate of voltage drop. That means you need a transformer rectifier station every mile or so. Because the rail is basically embedded in the road, expect high losses during wet weather. Electrocution is an issue for any ground level power supply. Then again, if a person crosses a motorway on foot, they will be in more danger of becoming road kill and strawberry jam from collision.

    The biggest problems would be wetting out in wet weather and the slot filling up with grit, dirt and general shite from the road. There would be a maintenance burden associated with keeping it clean.

  35. Эй, братья, пожалуйста, ударьте антиамериканскую собаку, которую я сделал из гранитного форума on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:33 pm 

    supertard does not believe. he said supremetard is “sky daddy”. he’s an atheistic libtard but he’s a moderate. he covers for muzzies by saying “religion” is a millstone around the neck of humanity but he would struggle to make sense of 34000 jihad attacks since 9/11 vs a couple from other religions. by saying “religion” he suppress the attrocities of muzzies. still no words from asia bibi either

  36. Эй, братья, пожалуйста, ударьте антиамериканскую собаку, которую я сделал из гранитного форума on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:41 pm 

    Please read supertard Robert Spencer’s book “History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS”.

    Also watch a few minutes of this video and see why I told the tards to pray to the Holy Mother. It’s probably too late now as it was in byzantine time

  37. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:54 pm 

    Эй, братья, пожалуйста, ударьте антиамериканскую собаку, которую я сделал из гранитного форума,

    тебе нравится секс с козами. приходите ко мне в Америку, товарищ.

  38. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:57 pm 

    Отправить личное сообщение, товарищ.

  39. Antius on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 4:35 pm 


    The contacts look somewhat fragile. Two prongs that stick into narrow slots. Quite susceptible to damage and getting stuck. I am quite surprised that they would design it that way.

    The rail itself has two narrow slots, about a centimetre wide each. The prongs fit into those slots. Such narrow slots would be prone to getting blocked with grit and dirt.

    I think the idea needs a bit more work. A simple top contact with earthing through rubber tyres might be a better idea.

  40. Эй, братья, пожалуйста, ударьте антиамериканскую собаку, которую я сделал из гранитного форума on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:47 pm 

    please pull some strings if you can and get asia bibi to the US
    I will personally carry her on my back from arrival gate to her car

  41. clyde on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:48 pm 

    Эй, братья, пожалуйста, ударьте антиамериканскую собаку, которую я сделал из гранитного форума

    My son, the Creator God has bestowed upon us ten inviolable commandements.


  42. clyde on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:49 pm 

    Эй, братья, пожалуйста, ударьте антиамериканскую собаку, которую я сделал из гранитного форума


  43. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 6:22 pm 

    Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:54 pm
    Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:57 pm

    clyde on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:48 pm
    clyde on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:49 pm

  44. The Prophet on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 7:50 pm 

    The false idol DAVY——-


  45. The Prophet on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:00 pm 

    Message for The Great Deceiver, DAVY

    Be silenced you wicked WHORE OF BABYLON for ye shall be cast down into the inescapable abode of the damned.

    You may speak an infinite number of Hail Mary’s for it matters not. Penance is unobtainable for your purpose of amendment is FALSE.

    Your fate is sealed, unrecoverable.

  46. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:02 pm 


  47. Father Sullivan on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:05 pm 

    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour Davy.

  48. JuanP on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:06 pm 

    More unwarranted lies and attacks from the board’s biggest bully, and still there are one or two motherfucking assholes on this site who side with this prick. Birds of a feather and all that. I guess some people will never be able to understand and accept the truth. I don’t blame them; it is a hard thing to do, and accepting reality is beyond most normal people.

  49. JuanP on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:08 pm 

    Do you have any proof to back your accusations, liar?

  50. Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:08 pm 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *