So you think he is that POWERFUL and yet they couldn't kill him or something?
You miss the point of what a gatekeeper and a controlled opposition means.
If AJ didn't exist someone else would have tapped on his market, but instead of misguiding people he would have told them the truth about jewish israelies.
he lied right off the bat & repeated Cooper's off-hand prediction about assets such as Usama bin laden using explosives on buildings as a false flag diversion power grab finishing the job that was attempted in 1993 as his own.
and like I said he hangs up on certain people.
when you've listened over the years live
then you see a pattern.
and btw a Wormtounge would say
what the crowd wants to hear
isn't that the job of the fool?
now no one can talk openly about the sandy hook event
Then what's the point of rolling it out? Like the one thing I can't comprehend is that these morons don't realize the most basic way to help with population control is to go skin deep and control the way food production is done. Basically speaking, we make and waste to much excess food, and yet we still have starvation issues, which makes absolutely no sense. If the average yearly food wasted amounts to about 108 billion pounds or 130 billion meals or 408 BILLION dollars then we could conclude that in theory let's say we have the average 3 meals a day. So that's 63.3 Billion Meals and then we divide that by the year feeds about 173,424,657 people. With the American population being about 331 mil, the amount of food wasted would nearly feed about half the population and yet we just throw it away.
This is the true problem with society, that the Capitalistic mindset treats resources as an infinite resource, with no care of wasting those resources as long as the amount being wasted provides more profit.
They would rather make 150k and waste 25k in product rather than make 100k and waste 0k in product even though in the long run, if they actually wasted no resources they would be making more money, but they only look at the bigger number and ignore the longer term ramifications of wasting resources.
Yawn. Nonsense. It is not viable yet. Neither is it cheap.
They've managed to produce a return. Harnessing for long enough to gain potentially something back
However the parts aren't sustainable or cost effective. Meanwhile the potential for output isn't unlimited. It is harnessing for long enough to get returns. How much by the comparison needed to generate it? Further how much energy is provided, wattage, and how often does it stress the means harnessing.
Tediously out by larger margins if indeed it becomes the next standard adopted.
Currently fission is still the reactors being constructed, currently, there are builds and plans for a number more and in smaller sizes.
If such a breakthrough is imminent then why indeed are fission reactors being constructed. The demand. Because Fusion hasn't got a working model generating for the grid. It is still experimental.
I guess I read that article after I read the headline. It is as confirmed decades away. But it has been like this for years. Everytime it wants more funding. The breakthrough was announced earlier this year and also last. Breaking temperatures, and harnessing longer. Enough to potentially power something, but not enough to sustain the grid or indefinitely. In the meantime fission is being constructed and it's designs are getting smaller. I don't know why it calls it clean and sustainable. Can anybody else tell me about electro magnets and superheated plasma. Irony I guess it's not the nuclear waste?
And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.
It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ (1kWh) of electricity to get 2.1 MJ (0.6kWh) of laser light to make 2.5 MJ (0.7kWh) of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.
Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.
Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.
Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. It is nor clean, nor cheap energy as they told you. And again - that power stations will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a fucking battery.
I already provided you numbers. It is more than economically viable in Russia and gives stable profit. IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
I believe the nuclear shilling is just a diversion to tie up money while not creating a solution.
Nuclear power is too old to be a diversion for anything. It does not differ much from coal burning power plants nowdays.
Meanwhile, do you know that ash dump of regular coal power plant is more radioactive than working NPP?
IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
Exactly the issue. There is so much red tape involved that it bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017. Smaller scale thorium reactors are entirely feasible but it won't ever be implemented.
Most interesting thing for me is why US nearly banned all research on fast-neutron reactors (breeders). Looks like a treason to me.
Shortly, fast-neutron reactor fuel is depleted fuel from regular reactors. And fast-neutron reactor waste is a fuel for regular reactors. That way you could utilise more than 30% of stored energy from uranium ore, instead of 3% in one-way fuel cycle.
To close fuel cycle you need 1 fast-neutron reactor for approx. 10 regular ones. In the end you get much less harmful waste with short-living isotopes that have to be hold in storage for few years only to become harmless. Aside of that, this waste is a source of very rare elements, like technetium or extremely rare rare-earth metals.
In Russia there are 2 commercial fast-neutron reactors on Beloyarsk NPP that work on nuclear waste from other NPPs and provide heat and electricity to Ekaterinburg region. There plans to build more to completely close local nuclear fuel cycle and use foreign nuclear waste as fuel. And as a result get not only electricity, but also new fuel for regular NPPs. Just think a little - west wil give us nuclear fuel and pay us for taking it. IDK, looks like very interesting business, isn't it?
Why other countries that own advanced nuclear tech like France or US just abandoned that ultimate stuff years ago, despite relatively good results? France even had a most powerful fast-neutron reactor in the world, but ran it only in test mode and despite good and stable results it was suddenly shut down and disassembled 1998. Old small one, working from 1972 again only in testing mode was closed in 2009. And all research in that direction was stopped. US closed two unfinished projects of fast-neutron reactors without waiting any results.
Looks like some insanity, really. Especially when at the same time, same countries cry about nuclear waste problem.
I have nothing against coal. I consider burning coal even useful, because it returns useful CO2 into Earth atmosphere making Earth greener and with better climate in some distant future. I want my grandchildren live on Earth that is green from pole to pole, not on that half dead Earth we live now.
But having nothing against coal does not mean that I have to have something against NPPs or hydroelectric, or natural gas or black oil power stations. They are all good things, that provide energy to people.
I've always believed they would roll out the real fusion if and when we run out of oil. Even if you believe oil replenishes, does it do it fast enough?
Actually, the announcement was kind of fake and gay.
The fusion reaction did produce more energy out than optically went in. However the power to the lasers to cause the beams to cause the reaction was 100x the power that came out. So the NET production was highly negative and this was bullshit.
AJ is a gatekeeper.
talk about masons talk about small hats & he hangs up on callers for decades
https://youtu.be/JskEUfGBijg
So you think he is that POWERFUL and yet they couldn't kill him or something? You miss the point of what a gatekeeper and a controlled opposition means.
If AJ didn't exist someone else would have tapped on his market, but instead of misguiding people he would have told them the truth about jewish israelies.
That's no theory.
that's experience.
he lied right off the bat & repeated Cooper's off-hand prediction about assets such as Usama bin laden using explosives on buildings as a false flag diversion power grab finishing the job that was attempted in 1993 as his own.
and like I said he hangs up on certain people.
when you've listened over the years live
then you see a pattern.
and btw a Wormtounge would say
what the crowd wants to hear
isn't that the job of the fool?
now no one can talk openly about the sandy hook event
among other topics.
get it?
or did ya nazi that coming?
there's a case to refer to now
by the minion gatekeepers
when someone dares to leave Plato's cave
truth does not fear the light of day.
peace out.
https://youtu.be/JskEUfGBijg
Then what's the point of rolling it out? Like the one thing I can't comprehend is that these morons don't realize the most basic way to help with population control is to go skin deep and control the way food production is done. Basically speaking, we make and waste to much excess food, and yet we still have starvation issues, which makes absolutely no sense. If the average yearly food wasted amounts to about 108 billion pounds or 130 billion meals or 408 BILLION dollars then we could conclude that in theory let's say we have the average 3 meals a day. So that's 63.3 Billion Meals and then we divide that by the year feeds about 173,424,657 people. With the American population being about 331 mil, the amount of food wasted would nearly feed about half the population and yet we just throw it away.
This is the true problem with society, that the Capitalistic mindset treats resources as an infinite resource, with no care of wasting those resources as long as the amount being wasted provides more profit.
They would rather make 150k and waste 25k in product rather than make 100k and waste 0k in product even though in the long run, if they actually wasted no resources they would be making more money, but they only look at the bigger number and ignore the longer term ramifications of wasting resources.
We use resources other than food, and they are harder to ‘grow’
Yawn. Nonsense. It is not viable yet. Neither is it cheap.
They've managed to produce a return. Harnessing for long enough to gain potentially something back
However the parts aren't sustainable or cost effective. Meanwhile the potential for output isn't unlimited. It is harnessing for long enough to get returns. How much by the comparison needed to generate it? Further how much energy is provided, wattage, and how often does it stress the means harnessing.
Tediously out by larger margins if indeed it becomes the next standard adopted.
Currently fission is still the reactors being constructed, currently, there are builds and plans for a number more and in smaller sizes.
If such a breakthrough is imminent then why indeed are fission reactors being constructed. The demand. Because Fusion hasn't got a working model generating for the grid. It is still experimental.
I guess I read that article after I read the headline. It is as confirmed decades away. But it has been like this for years. Everytime it wants more funding. The breakthrough was announced earlier this year and also last. Breaking temperatures, and harnessing longer. Enough to potentially power something, but not enough to sustain the grid or indefinitely. In the meantime fission is being constructed and it's designs are getting smaller. I don't know why it calls it clean and sustainable. Can anybody else tell me about electro magnets and superheated plasma. Irony I guess it's not the nuclear waste?
Absolutely despite some gains already running up trillions.
And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.
It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ (1kWh) of electricity to get 2.1 MJ (0.6kWh) of laser light to make 2.5 MJ (0.7kWh) of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.
Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.
Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.
Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. It is nor clean, nor cheap energy as they told you. And again - that power stations will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a fucking battery.
Thank you
I already provided you numbers. It is more than economically viable in Russia and gives stable profit. IDK, if US have some strange tradition to overprice every nut and bolt for any more or less serious tech and have no tech to use depleted fuel, it does not mean that NPP is not profitable. It means that US economy is broken.
Nuclear power is too old to be a diversion for anything. It does not differ much from coal burning power plants nowdays.
Meanwhile, do you know that ash dump of regular coal power plant is more radioactive than working NPP?
Exactly the issue. There is so much red tape involved that it bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017. Smaller scale thorium reactors are entirely feasible but it won't ever be implemented.
Most interesting thing for me is why US nearly banned all research on fast-neutron reactors (breeders). Looks like a treason to me.
Shortly, fast-neutron reactor fuel is depleted fuel from regular reactors. And fast-neutron reactor waste is a fuel for regular reactors. That way you could utilise more than 30% of stored energy from uranium ore, instead of 3% in one-way fuel cycle. To close fuel cycle you need 1 fast-neutron reactor for approx. 10 regular ones. In the end you get much less harmful waste with short-living isotopes that have to be hold in storage for few years only to become harmless. Aside of that, this waste is a source of very rare elements, like technetium or extremely rare rare-earth metals.
In Russia there are 2 commercial fast-neutron reactors on Beloyarsk NPP that work on nuclear waste from other NPPs and provide heat and electricity to Ekaterinburg region. There plans to build more to completely close local nuclear fuel cycle and use foreign nuclear waste as fuel. And as a result get not only electricity, but also new fuel for regular NPPs. Just think a little - west wil give us nuclear fuel and pay us for taking it. IDK, looks like very interesting business, isn't it?
Why other countries that own advanced nuclear tech like France or US just abandoned that ultimate stuff years ago, despite relatively good results? France even had a most powerful fast-neutron reactor in the world, but ran it only in test mode and despite good and stable results it was suddenly shut down and disassembled 1998. Old small one, working from 1972 again only in testing mode was closed in 2009. And all research in that direction was stopped. US closed two unfinished projects of fast-neutron reactors without waiting any results.
Looks like some insanity, really. Especially when at the same time, same countries cry about nuclear waste problem.
I have nothing against coal. I consider burning coal even useful, because it returns useful CO2 into Earth atmosphere making Earth greener and with better climate in some distant future. I want my grandchildren live on Earth that is green from pole to pole, not on that half dead Earth we live now.
But having nothing against coal does not mean that I have to have something against NPPs or hydroelectric, or natural gas or black oil power stations. They are all good things, that provide energy to people.
That BS FT.com article about Lawrence Livermore Lab "cracking fusion" is just BS.
The lab is a Weapons development lab (think nukes). They don't give a fuck about civil nuclear energy production via fusion.
They've just ran out of money, and need more moneyz for their lazerz.
I've always believed they would roll out the real fusion if and when we run out of oil. Even if you believe oil replenishes, does it do it fast enough?
https://archive.vn/WecM2
Q said new old tech would be revealed as part of the Great Awakening.
Why give promise to the sheep at the very end if you're cabal? Revelation works against them.
A LARP, as prophet for profit, under Stratfor employ would have to keep a parallel plotline to continue his ruse.
Aren't parallel plotlines a bitch?
Actually, the announcement was kind of fake and gay. The fusion reaction did produce more energy out than optically went in. However the power to the lasers to cause the beams to cause the reaction was 100x the power that came out. So the NET production was highly negative and this was bullshit.