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.
“Shivering in the dark” may be exactly the dose of reality the populace needs. A litttle bit of that will cause people to warm up to any effective form of power generation. Until then nothing will happen. Utility companies will just keep their old plnats running until they fall apart.
James Sexton says:
August 9, 2010 at 11:32 pm
There are other viable alternate energy sources, such as LFTR, but I really don’t believe we are going to be able allowed 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_vehicle
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because, as the article says, the fuel does not exist, it has to be manufactured which is a very costly and energy intensive process. Further, there is no infrastructure to manufacture, transport, store or distribute it, and it would take 50 years of intensive construction, costing on the order of $1x10E15, to create the infrastructure necessary to displace liquid fossil fuels. The hydrogen has to be compressed to 4000 psi, and H2 – the smallest molecule, wants very much to escape its containment; it is very difficult to make the fuel systems leakproof (i.e. SAFE) and to keep them safe. The maintenance of leak-checking and repairing is continuous; do not think for a minute that a vehicle that is 5-10 years old with 50K – 100k miles (and corrosion) will not be pissing hydrogen from every threaded and compression fitting ! In other words, don’t smoke in your car, or park it in your garage !
Keith Battye says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:11 am
When you consider that the use of hydrogen in transportation is dependent only on cheap , reliable, methods of generating hydrogen then extensive electrical power at reasonable prices is really the only obstacle remaining. Small, discrete, hydrogen generators could be established in homes, depots, gas stations and so on using the electrical distribution grid. This would overcome the issues surrounding large scale storage and distribution of hydrogen.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Small, discrete, hydrogen generators could be established in homes, depots, gas stations”
Keith, that is laughable (ROFLMAO !)
First, to generate significant quantities of hydrogen – rapidly – for use at a public facility like a gas station would require a warehouse sized building to provide the necessary surface area for the reaction.
Second, the hydrogen at atmospheric pressure will have to be stored in large vessels requiring a small building or two themselves.
Third, the gas will have to be compressed to 4000 psi which requires an electric motor or engine driven compressor, the size of which (for a commercial scale, like a gas station) is the size of a full-size school bus ! And it’s loud, REALLY REALLY LOUD !
Fourth, the high-pressure gas requires its own high pressure storage bottle system (like giant O2 welding bottles) which, for a gas station would also be around the size of a school bus.
Now, on a private scale – such as in your home – you can take all day to make hydrogen for a car so you can fill it each or every other night (you will have to because the range of even a small compact car will only be 100 miles – at best !), so you won’t need as large a system, but you will still need the equivalent of three or four Suburbans, in other words its own small house. But make sure it is FAR AWAY from the house you live in, because if anything leaks or goes wrong it will blow up like something in an action movie (not to mention how REALLY LOUD the running compressor will be) ! Oh, and it will have to be built to Class I Division I electrical standards for hazardous atmospheres (very, very expensive).
BOTTOM LINE : Hydrogen as a motor fuel is a fools pipe dream, and those advocating it are no different than the fools who rushed to San Fran or the Klondike during the gold rush years – it was only the guys who sold them shovels and clothes who got rich…………. If you’d prefer a 20th century equivalent, they’re no different than those who said (or still say) that fusion power is just around the corner ……….
cedarhill says:
August 10, 2010 at 3:44 am
Politically, this will simply not change over the next four Congressional election cycles due to the lead times of bringing energy on line. If you think $4/gal gasoline was bad, how about your electrical bill exceeding your mortgage and food bill combined. That’s were we’re headed. It’s simply too late. Converting to Smart Meters and such will help in a small way but energy needs will not decline.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Converting to Smart Meters IS the problem !!!
Don’t confuse Smart GRID with Smart METERS. Smart Grid will be a good thing for system reliability, but Smart Meters will allow the utilities to know exactly how much electricity you are using, and when. When combined with “Innovative Rate Structures” this will allow your utility to charge a lot more $$$ for electricity during “peak periods.” So you may use the same total KW per month as you do now, but you’ll pay a lot more for it ! Smart Meters will also give the utility the ability to turn off your (modern) appliances like your fridge or AC or washer or dishwasher if they think they need to. Initially such curtailment will only be during times of dangerously overwhelming demand, but later on, there will be electricity quotas, and if you exceed your allowable quota for the period, the utility will either charge you an additional premium on all electricity above your quota, AND/OR they may even curtail your usage (via the Smart Meter), depending of course, on the exact “Innovative Rate Structure” your local government approves in your area.
There is no other purpose for Smart Meters than doing what I described above, and as a leader of a local utility put it : “it is all about changing peoples’ behavior.”
SMART GRID = GOOD
SMART METERS = THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO YOUR ACCESS TO CHEAP, ABUNDANT ELECTRICITY
There’s no problem that unlimited, cheap energy can’t solve. The cost of whatever good was done by Clinton/Gore (possibly debatable ; ) was the price we paid to the Green/Nuclear ‘supporters’. IFR, after successfully being tested was dismantled at as much cost as to build it, so that no one else might further the technology~
The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project
A nuclear power plant design invented at Argonne National Lab 24 years ago has none of the drawbacks of conventional nuclear plants
The European arm of the new Global Government in waiting is flexing its muscles!
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2010/08/eu-taxation-without-representation-but-has-britain-got-what-it-takes-to-fight.html
I’ll say it quietly once again my dear colonial friends, YOUR NEXT!
Walter Schneider says:
August 10, 2010 at 7:11 am ,
Uh. Walt. If I may be so familiar. You know I was criticizing “cheap” solar/wind didn’t you? I’m Naval Nuke trained. I like nukes. I like Polywell fusion, I like coal, oil, and natural gas. Even solar and wind – where they make economic sense. Grid tie is not it.
I strongly recommend you take a look at this site.
http://focusfusion.org/index.php
Cheap to build, cheap to run, no practical limits on fuel source, small enough for a localised solution, radiation (and CO2) free.
Trevor says:
August 10, 2010 at 8:14 am
“The inverse of this statement is that thorium reactors are 1/10,000 as toxic (or 0.0001 times or 0.01% as toxic) as conventional reactors. That’s 0.9999 times (or 99.99%) less toxic. But “10,000 times less toxic” just SOUNDS so much better, doesn’t it? ”
Trevor is correct. “1/10,000 as toxic (or 0.0001 times or 0.01% as toxic) as conventional reactors” would have been a better way to say it. Sounds just as good as 10,000 times … to me.
A number of people have commented that some “greens” do not favor low cost clean energy because it will encourage more population growth and resource consumption. I think this is true. However, I hope those “greens” who feel this way will consider the graph showing birth rate vs GDP on this page. Birth rates stabilize with higher GDP. Is it moral to deny others the standard of living that you enjoy?
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/07/11/ending-energy-poverty/
Poptech says:
“Regardless Nuclear still cannot replace hydrocarbon energy because it nor the electricity it generates can be used as a practical transportation fuel.”
I just spent some time at the Henry Ford museum and was surprised by the commercial electric cars from 100+ years ago. I’m surprised that it is so difficult to make something viable today.
Most of the skeptics I know are all for clean energy. They just don’t think WE NEED IT IN SIX MONTHS OR WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE.
“Can common ground be found between “warmers” and “skeptics”? Can we identify energy sources that satisfy the concerns of both groups?”
The answer is YES, see the videos and comments I posted at the tail end of the comments section for 2 Senators. MIT Professor Dan Nocera makes it clear and simple — decentralize power generation.
Two Senators upcoming presser on CLEAR Act
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/two-senators-upcoming-presser-on-clear-act/#more-22265
JimB says:
August 10, 2010 at 4:48 am
“You mean Canadian oil, as that far surpasses the imported oil from the Middle East.”
No, I meant Middle Eastern oil. The day Canada becomes an Islamic thugocratic sponsor of terrorism and jihad is the day I will care about Canadian oil. I think most people agree that Canada and the US have a very special relationship that is likely unmatched in the world today.
No.
Attempting to find common ground and compromise tacitly admits to an element of truth to the opposing side. The current dialog is that the science is *wrong* and *badly performed* and is a case of *experimenter bias.* Finding common ground doesn’t solve the problem. Next year it will be killer bees and the year after giant spacemen, so long as people do not question the conclusions provided for them by post-modern science and alarmist media. It is NOW to develop a world of critical thinkers by demonstrating to a huge portion of the population that they have been, in a word, bamboozled. No compromise.
Yes, birth rates stabilize with development. What you conveniently leave out is that if we are to stabilize birth rates at 9 billion people and Western Europe (not even US) levels of resource consumption, we will need another 5 planets to provide for them. And this will be just for a century or two at most, until the depletion of various mineral ores put an end to technological civilization.
And this doesn’t even consider economic growth. Our current economic system is such that it requires constant expansions, which invariably means more physical stuff being consumed. It is foolish to think that you can stay at current levels of Western consumption and sustain the economic system, it will collapse without growth. So those 5 planets become even more.
Living in the fairy tale world where free markets always bring the best possible outcome and resources are infinite surely feels nice. Reality is different
To make it easier for the “Warmers” who prefer to “Wag the Dog” instead of training it.
A good primer on Thorium reactors is to be found here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
It includes molten salt cooled reactors as well as the more traditional fixed fuel element designs. The world is likely to shift from uranium to thorium as uranium gets more expensive in a few decades. The Chinese and Koreans are doing research on that now.
There are 59 large commercial nuclear power reactors being built at the moment, mostly in eastern Europe and Asia:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
Compared to none, that’s ZERO, new starts in the US in the past 30 years.
Plus, nuclear power stations are the only technology that includes decomissioning as part of the electricity rate structure.
Until we have cheap, superconducting powerlines and cheap, efficient storage; solar and windpower are both feelgood wastes of funds for most of the developed world.
Nuclear should be the baseload power generation system of choice, as it leaves all of the hydrocarbons available for mobile systems power and lubrication.
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:57 am
“You could only say that if you have zero understanding of what people like Hodlren are saying.”
It is clear to me that Graeme and others here have a better understanding of Holdren than apologists like you ever will. The misanthropic, Malthusian world view of people like John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, Maurice Strong and Dave Foreman, to name a few, is both sickening and disgusting.
Many commenters on this site often joke about us skeptics/deniers being sent to re-education camps. I believe in free speech and appreciate that Anthony and the other moderators allow all viewpoints to be heard. However in my darker moments, when I read comments like yours that attempt to rationalise Holdren’s misanthropic statements I think a 2 to 3 month stay in a re-education camp for the Holdren’s of this world, and their apologists, might not be such a bad idea.
My fantasy re-education camp would be in a small village in a third world country. There participants would have the opportunity to enjoy subsisting on rice and noodles, drinking boiled water, and washing in rivers in to which untreated sewerage is released. The long nights without electricity would allow them plenty of quite time to reflect on the reality and quality of village life which is far different from the idealised fantasy penned by Hillary Clinton. I don’t think that most of them would last a week. But if they did they might start to understand why so many people from third world countries want to move to the west for a better life. They might even reflect on why the quality of life in the developed world is better and start to realise that it is due to a number of factors a few of which include freedom, democracy, a higher standard of education, clean water, nutritious food and abundant cheap energy. Late at night and hearing the neighbor couple “making babies” they might even take the next step and gather insights as to why urban populations in the developed world have the lowest birthrates where as third world villages have some of the highest birth rates.
It is a sad comment on our society that some people attempt to rationalize the misanthropic comments of John Holdren and the views of Paul Ehrlich. Worse yet they will reward the work of greedy, narrow minded, self interested people like Al Gore but remain blissfully ignorant of the work of people like Norman Borlaug who honestly care about their fellow man.
Thanks for posting! I’ve long been a proponent of advanced nuclear reactor designs, with my own favorite being the “Integral Fast Reactor,” developed by good old Argonne National Laboratories.
Pres. Clinton killed this off close to completion, even though it would have been ideal to burn through left-over fissile material from nuclear warheads.
Why the libs don’t like this approach, I’ll never understand. I guess they think the world can be powered by love and bunny rabbits or something.
Please see: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
Solution to what?
There is no CO2 crisis. Warmer Is Better, anyway.
Everybody wants to get on the Alarmist Bus. Wait, wait! I have a Solution to the CO2 Crisis: chew gum, eat your children, buy a pony, dance in the sun, form a druid study group, ban toe fungus, shut down the public school system, enslave the market, etc.
But there Is No Crisis. CO2 is good for the planet.
Thanks a heap for all your thorium dreams, and I hope you get a big grant, but puleeease give the CO2 crisis mongering a rest. Thank you.
PS to GM — you are welcome to move to Cuba where they don’t have free markets. You’ll like it there, and we won’t have to put up with you any more.
tallbloke says:
August 10, 2010 at 7:12 am
“Ahem, [*cough*]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301560/New-nuclear-power-stations-built-2018-promises-Energy-Secretary.html”
And a greater Damascene conversion I have yet to witness from a politician! Read just the article (never mind the comments) and you will see the effect it has had – an uproar in the Liberal party ranks.
This is the first positive statement from anyone in the UK government about new base-load generation in the UK. This – in effect – proves the point of the previous commenter that the UK continues on a plan to close coal/oil/gas generating stations (a plan which the original commenter was claiming did not exist).
I know little of the liquid Thorium technology, but the Canadians have been developing Deuterium-modulated reactors which don’t require enriched Uranium for a while (called Candu – would you beleive!). A nice niche for those countries who want to remove the potential for enrichment leading to weapons production. Seems like we have many technologies for nuclear power generation which are separate from weapons now – it’s about time we got over MAD and got down to development.
I am not a believer in anything – CAGW or Peak Oil (which there is similarly no evidence for as yet), but fossil fuels are – by definition – finite and we need a serious source of energy for the future, whenever that future may be.
A good line from a previous comment sums it up “there are few problems that source of energy cannot solve” (I took out cheap because that is a relative term).
Simple questions: do you think all the problems of the third world would be easier or more difficult to solve if there wasn’t so many people there and the birthrates were at replacement level? The reality of life in a Third world country is precisely what we are trying to prevent from happening. What’s so hard to understand? BTW, it will not be long before similar conditions return to the West too, if we continue BAU.
Those aren’t misanthropic comments. People look at what we know about how the world works (i.e. they study disciplines such as human ecology that are completely missing from the thinking of economists and free market ideologues), they look at the data about where we are now, they make conclusions about where we have to be and how we can (or can’t) get there. Nothing misanthropic about reality. Reality is indifferent towards human feelings. You can not ignore that, unless you believe in the bearded man in the sky, but he isn’t real anyway.
Again, what you described above was a classic picture of society suffering from a Malthusian crisis. That’s precisely what we don’t want and nobody is advocating that. But if you want to keep the AT high in the I=PAT equation, you have to lower the P accordingly. No way around that.
Redneck:
Dang, you’ve got some fancy book learning in yur head and dun sound like one of them ignunt illiterate-types GM says are everywhar. Tell me, if you is fat, do you eat junk food while watchin’ the TV, cuz them thangs bugs him, too!/sarc
Nice post. Whenever I hear of people talking about Holdren or Ehrlich, I switch off and leave the room. I’m surprised, however, that GM hasn’t mentioned the accomplishments of Margaret Sanger.
As for the best way to keep people down and ship people off to camps, better get advice from the Democrats—they have a lot of experience.
Phil’s Dad says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:38 am
I strongly recommend you take a look at this site.
http://focusfusion.org/index.php
Cheap to build, cheap to run, no practical limits on fuel source, small enough for a localised solution, radiation (and CO2) free.
Thanks for the link!
redneck says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:40 am
…I could have a few beautiful places, in the middle of the amazon jungle for them to enjoy, where they could be reeducated by some “brujos” with the use of ayahuasca :
http://www.biopark.org/peru/aya-effects.html