Can common ground be found between “warmers” and “skeptics”? Can we identify energy sources that satisfy the concerns of both groups?
Guest Post by Charles Hart
Warmers want energy that does not emit CO2 because they look at the climate data and conclude that CAGW is a credible threat that needs to be addressed. Their energy sources of choice are typically wind and solar.
Skeptics look at the same climate data and conclude the evidence for CAGW is just too weak to justify accepting the current high cost and unreliability of wind/solar. They look at Europe and notice that nuclear has given France the smallest carbon footprint and wind/solar has not been effective in any European country in keeping energy both low cost and low carbon.
What about nuclear? Some warmers support it (e.g. Dr. James Hansen) but others do not because of toxic waste streams, lingering concerns about safety, cost, and the potential for proliferation.
What if we could have nuclear power that was far “greener” than current technology, cost considerably less, was even safer and more proliferation resistant? What if this “greener” nuclear technology had already been proven in working prototypes?
Welcome to LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) technology. Demonstrated in the 60′s, the thorium/uranium fuel cycle molten salt reactor (LFTR) approach was abandoned to concentrate efforts on the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle pressurized water reactor (PWR) during the cold war bomb making era, an era when lots of plutonium was considered a good thing, not something to be worried about.
LFTR (compared to current PWR): A waste steam 10,000 times less toxic (some variations of LFTR can actually burn PWR waste). Cost <50%, thus competitive with coal. Even safer (no fuel rods to melt, no high pressure radioactive water to escape, passive criticality control ….). More proliferation resistant.
What about the politics? Replacing coal with LFTRs is far easier politically than imposing cap n trade or carbon taxes. $10B invested over 10 years could update this technology and make it ready for commercialization. LFTR is attractive to both Democrats/warmers and Republicans/skeptics. It is very green, cost competitive and can be put into production for a realively modest sum.
Short version:
Long version:
For more information see:
American Scientist “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors”
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/07/01/welcome-american-scientist-readers/
“Energy Cheaper Than From Coal”
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/07/11/ending-energy-poverty/
Mechanical Engineering Magazine “Too Good to Leave on the Shelf”
http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/May/Too_Good_Leave_Shelf.cfm
Dr James Hansen LFTR endorsement
20081229_Obama_revised.pdf (application/pdf Object)
LFTR nuts to bolts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I fully support the resurgence of nuclear energy use in the U.S. even though my thyroid glands are no longer functioning from having lived down-wind from Hanford, Washington in the 1940s and absorbing too much Iodine-131 that was released in the atmosphere.
Whoops! Here we go again…
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955183-3,00.html
Part of the problem with acceptance of Nuclear Power is the public’s perception of it as dangerous,
Myth: Nuclear Energy is Dangerous
– 104 Commercial Nuclear Reactors are operating in the United States
– 103 Military Nuclear Reactors are operating in the U.S. Navy
Regardless Nuclear still cannot replace hydrocarbon energy because it nor the electricity it generates can be used as a practical transportation fuel.
I have never understood the correlation between a concern about global warming and an aversion to nuclear power. If we are on track for catastrophic global warming, then this ought to increase humanity’s tolerance for nuclear risks (primarily proliferation; dealing with waste is a red herring). It’s hard to take the sky-is-falling crowd seriously when they generally shun such an obvious solution. In this respect, the thorium reactor design is very intriguing, given that it utilizes a fission process that is hard to divert to bomb making. Of the many energy technologies pursued, this one to me seems very encouraging. $10B for its continued development is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been spent on fusion research, for which we seem no closer to the holy grail.
Excellent! It’s about time the potential agreements between the warring views were explored further. Back in the late 1970s, I may have been the only member of Friends of Earth (in England) who was also an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power. I haven’t been a supporter of any environmental group (other than the Nature Conservancy) in decades, but have always supported more nuclear power. I’ve been following the thorium discussion over the last year or so, and it does indeed sound promising. However, while thorium may be the best place to focus, we shouldn’t ignore the potential for other types of fission reactors with modern designs. These make sense whether or not you believe in a significant human factor in warming. One area where I suspect I and many of you may still conflict with the AGW types: Nuclear power (thorium-based or otherwise) would be less expensive if regulation was reduced below the currently excessive levels.
The radical elements(the majority) of the alarmist/warmist AGW adherents do not want want plentiful cheap energy at all, they want expensive rationed energy controlled from a central point and following central planning diktats.
They want us to use less energy and consume less products that require energy to produce them, cheap plentiful energy is the enemy of the alarmists because it would destroy their central aims, no carbon trading and low energy prices would be a disaster for those groups who pour funding into the AGW industry and in a political sense it would contradict the pro AGW community narrative which demands a wholesale dismantling of our industrial civilisation.
In other words it isnt about power(energy) its all about power(political). An energy matrix that produces no CO2 and is cheap, reliable and plentiful would be opposed bitterly by the eco fundamentalist AGW industry, its the very last thing they require.
As a sceptic my view is that we don’t need a controlling hand on energy policy. If government interference was removed, companies could plan for the long term without having to worry about being gamed by the government. Look at what the Americans have done to BP after changing the rules on a protectionist whim.
PBRs are interesting too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
I’m a “believer”.
We have tens of thousands of years of energy available in Thorium, and some U235 to get it started, with IFRs.
That might even be long enough to get fusion working, or to develop effective storage for solar…
The biggest problem here (Australia) is that the Greens and Labor have spents so much time demonising nuclear power that they can’t even bring themselves to look at it; they seem to think we would be better off freezing in the dark!
Run this by our top physicists. You need to assess unintended consequences before heading down a road.
Here in the UK we need something very quickly or the lights are going to go out. All our new energy minister (he has some green sounding title) wants is more windmills, but not the backup coal, gas or nuclear for when the wind don’t blow. So it seams the country that gave you the industrial revolution is going to be the first back to the Dark Ages.
No, no, no, no, no! (Personally, I think it’s a brilliant idea!!!!)
The only sensible solution to CAGW/CC is the creation of an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, unsackable, Global Government, run by Marist Socialist Intellectual Elitists who will tax the poor people in rich wicked free democratic countries & dole the dosh out to rich people in poor, dictatorial, leftist, self-enriching countries, & enrich the new Global Government to boot along the way – they need the money (don’t we all?)! Simples! What use is scientific advancement if politicos can’t control it?:-))
It sounds fantastic – too good to be true – endless supplies of cheap energy which cannot ‘go critical’ or produce material for nuclear bombs – very little radioactive waste to dispose of – and the concept has been around since the 1960’s !!! Why have we not been told about this sooner? I can’t help thinking there must be a great big technical snag somewhere – otherwise we can only assume that there has been some political reason why such reactors have not been built.
It occurs to me that if such power is made available in the near future then we might have something to thank GWA for after all.
It’s about time the popular blogs specifically promote thorium reactors as a viable solution to our energy problems and nuclear proliferation. This technology needs to be thoroughly explained and repeated to the masses so that government acts on it.
The Green objections to nuclear are based on their political goals, so this post is irrelevant to them. It would be hard to destroy the economy of the US if there is abundant power, so they’ll never endorse it. Green is the new Red.
Excellent post – the unspoken alternative.
“$10B invested over 10 years could update this technology and make it ready for commercialization” Is questionable – but could be 10x more expensive and still worth the effort to commercialise if it was capable of producing a politically acceptable outcome that could cut through the current polarised debate around energy.
I suspect two major groups that will hate it.
The Holdren types who liken cheap energy as a like giving a machine gun to children. I.e. empowering the masses is always a bad idea because their prosperity get’s in the way of the acquisition and maintenance of political control.
The green luddites for whom any technological solution must be bad – for example you still have to mine the Uranium and mines are bad… etc.
As a confirmed AGW alarmist, I have no problem having nuclear power in the mix. It seems likely it will end up being part of the solution to the problem which (according to you guys) we don’t have.
I’m a firm believer in AGW and think that a good keynesian stimulus would have been to build 100 nuclear power plants.
What about Helium3? No nasty side effects….
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/227-helium-3-fusion.html
http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html
of course, it’s very rare on Earth, the only way it is currently produced is via tritium isotope decay.
Thank you so much for talking about this, I’ve been a proponent of thorium reactors for a while and if we build enough of these we can start converting our coal into fuel for our cars and get off of Middle Eastern oil.
Professor Barry Brook is an AGW believer and has had quite in depth and technical discussion of the LFTR on his site BraveNewClimate for some time. The reactor looks like a very good solution for energy in both developed and developing nations. Sadly the problem facing the quick introduction of this technology is the lack of hands on experience in engineering and running these plants. Public fear of nuclear power has stalled the development of newer and safer systems.
The real problem is The Warmists want all humans except themselves dead. That is the crux of it. It is neither about science nor technology. It is about politics.
Looking at the first diagram, it would appear that the radioactive coolant salt passes through a heat exchanger that “does not contain nuclear materials”. Even so, the fluid in the heat exchanger must become radioactive by virtue of it’s exposure to the radioactive coolant salt.
The “newly” radioactive fluid passes through a helium heat exchanger, during which the helium must also become radioactive, for the same reason.
So therefore the turbines and compressors become radioactive in their turn. Even if these stages of radioactivity transfer reduce, at each stage, they still occur and over a 50-year plant lifetime accumulation must reach considerable levels.
How is maintenance of the moving machinery safely done, let alone replacement of, say transfer medium pipes, especially at bends, which tend to erode under the influence of fluid velocity, over time?
Normal steam boiler superheater bends, for instance, tend to have a 10-12 year life, even if the designers have the forethought to increase the thickness at the bends, to allow for the erosion.
In France they recycle the spent rods and make them into new fuel for the reactors which significantly decreases waste. However in the US the recycling of and nuclear waste is banned.
With 4th generation pebble-bed reactors and recycling of waste all major energy concerns could be met with little waste. As technology and discoveries increase over time I could only see things improving over the long run.
I think Thorium is excellent as well. I used to be a greenie nuclear-phobe but I am over my illness; and that of CAGW
There are other viable alternate energy sources, such as LFTR, but I really don’t believe we are going to be
ableallowed to pursue any. Hydrogen was my favorite. For some reason, it has all but fallen from the discussion of alternate fuel. Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicleWhy is it that our commercial fuel ethanol blends can only be made from corn? By using corn, the cost is increased over traditional gasoline and the efficiency is less. Land use is more and food production is less. I can’t believe this wasn’t purposeful.
Count me in on the LFTR or any other type of nuclear fuel. Sadly, I’m thinking it will lumped in with hydrogen or became bastardized as ethanol was.
We should all know by now, that the only way to CAGW heaven is through wind and solar. We can purify coal to where one can literally breath the exhaust of the clean coal without any adverse effects. We can decide to use spent rods or not, fire up an hydrogen vehicle, we can do fusion or fission, LFTR or PWR. None of these alternate energy sources will see the light of day if the alarmists have their way.