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.
GM says:
… 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.
Un-cited conjecture like the statement above destroys GM’s credibility. And it doesn’t help when he states that skeptics are living in a “fairy tale world.”
J.M. Keynes was an optimist because he saw that exponential economic growth would provide an immensely better standard of living for an expanding population. Keynes was proven correct, and along with the growing population came a cleaner environment. The wealthiest countries have the cleanest, most pollution free environments.
Those are facts, not fairy tales. If GM wants to begin rebuilding credibility he needs to provide a convincing argument backed by verifiable facts. Throwing out baseless conjectures like “we will need another 5 planets” to provide for the population is not credible at the internet’s “Best Science” site. This isn’t RealClimate, where speculation by cognitive dissonance-afflicted blog readers is accepted without question, so long as it toes the Party line.
LOL, you really asked for that???? I guess the next thing is that you’re going to ask me to prove the Pythagorean theorem….
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 10:59 am
“[…]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.”
You forget the law of supply and demand. Demand would rise, making raw materials and energy more expensive. With every prize rise, incentives for the development of more efficient production technologies increase vastly. Example: Todays LCD TV’s – their production consumes much less raw material than CRT TV’s of similar screen size.
” 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,”
No, not at all. Germany – where i happen to live – has a stagnating population level, a stagnating energy consumption, stagnating wealth. Still, we get along. I’m not going into the artificial subsidized blossoming of solar energy; that’s only a huge boondoggle; we get along even though we have to pay for that.
” which invariably means more physical stuff being consumed.”
Again, not at all. Software, miniaturization, multi-purpose devices, a shift in consumption patterns towards services, increases in efficiency can create monetary growth without increasing the consumption of raw materials. Even if the monetary value of the raw materials consumed increases, this does not necessarily mean that the tonnage consumed increases.
If raw materials stay cheap enough to encourage consumption, that just means that we have enough of them. But if more billions acquire our wealth, the prizes will rise and encourage, as i said, every measure that reduces the amount of raw material consumed, every measure that helps to switch away from an expensive raw material – say, from Li-Ion to NaS batteries where possible – , and every measure that increases efficiency.
It is this self-enforcing of innovation inherent in capitalism (or the prize system) that Malthusians like you don’t want to see.
@GM
Artificial organisms with genomes cut & pasted from existing global gene pool can transform the world more than language, writing, fire, agriculture, metallurgy, and electronic information processing.
I already did my part. Stop wasting your time blogging and do yours.
Interesting idea, but violates the K.I.S.S. principle as it requires the development of – let me see – (1) Thorium-U233 alloys; (2) LiFl working fluid, with all the production and handling issues therewith; (3) use of helium (!) as a secondary working fluid in the steam production with various handling issues; (4) .. I lost interest after realizing that the “development” of such a reactor would require to development or invention of at least two and possibly three presently completely undeveloped technologies. Stick with PBR’s and gradually eliminate the pressurized water reactors. The tech development and research in the PBR’s is nearly complete and PBR’s could be produced – indeed, mass produced minus the fuel pellets – in the very near term .. sorry, within the next five years, with sufficient investment. No government money wanted.
The LTFR is a version of the Molten Salt Reactor, which Oak Ridge ran an experimental version of for five years, back in the 1960s. The EnergyFromThorium website has documents from the experiment (http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/) The MSRE proved the concept viable, but the reactor isn’t suitable for shipboard use, and the AEC was run by a naval Admiral, so the concept languished.
Note to Peter Melia: The moderator section is where the controlled fission occurs, outside of that area, the fuel salts won’t be emitting many neutrons, so the heat transfer salts won’t suffer from induced radioactivity.
The MSRE was run with salts based on thorium, uranium, and plutonium. It worked with all three. We could use MSRs to usefully “burn” Spent Nuclear Fuel while we develop thorium resources, thorium occurs in many rare earth ores but has no commercial use at present, so it’s just left in the tailings.
The thorium cycle has advantages, and there is three times as much of it in the Earth’s crust as uranium.
I’ve got my fingers crossed on Polywell and Focus Fusion, but the physics isn’t proven yet with them, we know MSRs work.
GM says at 12:35 pm:
“I guess the next thing is that you’re going to ask me to prove the Pythagorean theorem.”
An un-cited conjecture such as GM’s claim that we will need “another 5 planets” is meaningless. GM could have just as incredibly claimed that we need another 3 planets, or another 30 planets. The number comes from the belief system, not from the scientific method.
Observation shows that the average human’s condition is steadily improving on the one planet we have, despite the increasing population — and the wealthier the country, the cleaner and less polluted it is. No doubt GM would also refuse to believe that wealth is directly proportional to economic freedom, despite the direct correlation.
GM’s posts are typical of what passes for argument in the minds of those afflicted with Festinger’s cognitive dissonance: the flying saucers didn’t arrive on schedule, so that just means they’re late. Because in the minds of the true believers it couldn’t possibly mean there are no flying saucers.
A characteristic of GM’s posts is the lack of testable, empirical facts or verified observations. But there is no need for facts when a true believer’s mind is made up and closed tight.
M. Simon says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:36 am
“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.”
Mr Simon – The grid needs peaking power, and of the fuels you list, only natural gas Brayton turbines do a good job at peaking.
http://www2.caiso.com/ shows the factor of two day/night demand curve.
Grid tied solar can fill part of that requirement. There is now a utility-scale option that costs $2800/KW installed, and doesn’t use water as a lost process fluid.
I agree with your sentiments, but it is my opinion that the world should be reducing use of finite fossil fuels in favor of virtually infinite nuke power.
Thanks a million Anthony for this article.
Interesting responses here, but there is also an awful lot of opinionating from inadequate knowledge, and negative generalizing about “the other side” that hinders informed debate. I still just want to build up information. So often, it’s not that one side is right and the other wrong, but that there are important truths and values on all sides.
Q. Can we identify energy sources that satisfy the concerns of both groups?
A. Unlikely. Notice how quiet Hansen is about his pro nuke position. I think he has even said that in other parts of the world that nukes should get started, but the US political system is not supportive….in fact Hansen himself would rather be arrested at a coal plant (along with some starlet) than speak the truth to power.
Our country is quickly becoming pre-scientific in its culture. Reason does not trump fear, or fairness, or power of those in charge
Vaccines are produced mostly offshore. I just read an article on antibiotics and the FDA basically has its boot on the neck of pharma, so MRSA and other little bugs may win the day. Same with nukes. The love of wind and solar is not borne of reason but of a longing for a romantic existence.
Bear in mind that math/science education is going down, and that many graduate level science people are going back home and not staying here. We are now feeling the effects of Jane Fonda et al. Our only hope is to sway the neutral people to the side of the nukes. …the enviros, anti-nuke, anti-coal, etc. will never be reasoned with.
There are also Th fuel bundles that can be put into our exiting reactors, should we wish:
http://www.ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/designs
Oh, and the “need to store waste for 25,000 years” you hear anti-nuke folks shouting is just wrong. It’s based on time to decay to background levels. If you set your bar at “decay to original ore level” it drops to about 250 years. I’m much more comfortable that we can store the waste more safely than the original ore and do it for over 250 years; and that means nuclear is a net reducer of exposure risk.
Per mining: Thorium is found as surface sands in a lot of places. Including in the Carolina’s and a big load of it in India. (India has an active Thorium program due to that abundance.)
One Nit: The idea that you are making a proliferation PROOF product is wrong. It is much more proliferation resistant, but India has made a bomb from U233 (as has the USA… “Mike” I think it was…) Then again, India also made a bomb from ‘power reactor Pu’ so the notion that power reactor Pu can’t be used is also broken. Yeah, it’s harder than ‘bomb grade’ but not impossible to use. (You tend to have workers get irradiated to death and the device gets physically hot and does not store well. It irradiates its own guts until they don’t work anymore. But for a ‘use quick’ and let some workers die device, it will ‘go boom’… )
With that said, I’d take a Th/U233 cycle over Pu any day.
GM says on August 10, 2010 at 10:59 am
Where is this ridiculous meme coming from?
Where are the credible calculations to back it up?
There is an old saying: “Fish or cut bait”
Another: look before you leap.
… add any you can think of …
NONE of these can be compromised.
What would a compromise of up or down be?
What is a compromise of dead or alive?
There is no common ground between right or wrong.
It is fact or it is fiction.
Anything else is psychobabble.
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
“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?”
Since we do not live in a simple world there is no simple answer to your question.
Simple question: how would you institute a program of population reduction? By legislative fiat as China tried with one child families. I am sure you know about this program and some of the undesirable consequences resulting from it. Perhaps voluntary sterilization like they tried in India in the 1970s when they gave out a free transistor radio with every vasectomy. As it is the 21st century I would suggest giving away i-Phones or i-Pods.
IMHO the only way to reduce world population is through voluntary means and I believe the best way to achieve this is by raising the standard of living. That will require a lot of education and huge amounts of cheap, reliable energy which frankly renewables are incapable of producing.
Simple question: if you could wave a magic wand and stabilise the third world’s population how would you deal with the problems of an ageing society in countries which have no social programs whatsoever?
I hope my ‘Simple questions’ illustrates why I say there is no simple answer to your simple question.
“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.”
About 100 years ago there was this new revolutionary scientific discipline which posited that the only way forward for mankind was through selective breeding of humans with inferior humans being bred out. It was called eugenics and I am sure you are familiar with it. This ‘science’ had numerous proponents including many leading scientists and politicians. The scientists had studied the data and come to their conclusions about how best to ‘improve’ mankind. Some governments used eugenics to rationalize in some cases sterilisation in other instances genocide as well as to allow governments to execute anyone they did not like or agree with. Eugenics has since been discredited scientifically as well as ethically and morally. Okay maybe I went a little too far describing the comments as misanthropic but they should be viewed as having the potential to lead to both morally and ethically questionable practices which are misanthropic in nature much like eugenics did in the past.
ah, I’ve got it.
GM has arrived here, fresh from drinking in lots of information put out by those who appear totally committed to saving the planet (unlike us the unwashed). GM hasn’t yet begun to grasp the basic we all know here, that we’ve all got to do a bit of homework ourselves in fact-checking back to basics – and that this often shows that dirty is cleaner and clean-looking is dirtier. GM doesn’t yet understand that we the unwashed may actually be a lot cleaner (and greener) than those who at first sight look clean (and green).
Sean Peake says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“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”
Sean eyes only a littl bit fat cuz I onledrink beer an eat junk fod when I watch the WWE on Satrday nites. But I mad a misteak manny yers ago. The precher alwas warnned us littl uns at Sunday Sirvice not to go to univrcity cuz edumacation wood make us loose are faeth in God.
So consequently I can write like this otherwise the GM’s of this world couldn’t understand me. One advantage though, there is nothing more unnerving and frightening for a liberal/progressive than running into a educated redneck. It turns their whole world upside down.
This is another green herring.
We are ready in the US to begin constructing “Perfected” LWRs of the GenIII+ variety of nuclear plants in earnest in the next 12 months. Now the Greens say lets C-O-N-S-I-D-E-R a new kind of nuclear plant. It will only take 10-20 years to design, approve and gear up to build such novelties. Sadly, in 10 or 20 years, the Green leftists will have considered the new Nukes and decided …NO Nukes!
Screw them! I want to make them pay for their obstructionism. When we raise Utilities rates and check against the voting roles. Registered Democrats should get 100% of the increases. That seems only fair!
Dave Springer says:
August 10, 2010 at 5:54 am
Combine the two concepts, and we may get some decent organic computers….
There is a website with an open-minded list of novel energy concepts and claims. A conservative reviewer would consider some of the more exotic ideas to be outright hoaxes, but it is fun to follow the ‘alternative’ technology. And, if one of the radical ideas actually works…
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_–_RD
LarryD says, August 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm:
“the heat transfer salts won’t suffer from induced radioactivity”
If the lithium ‘burns’ to any extent (ie. Li + n = He + T) then the fluoride will become either HF/DF/TF or F2 gases. Not good for materials of construction! So you can have no radioactivity issues but could have some real hairy chemical activity issues. I don’t know of any material that would contain red hot fluorine gas for practical engineering lifetimes. You don’t have this problem with fuel elements.
“Can common ground be found between “warmers” and “skeptics”? Can we identify energy sources that satisfy the concerns of both groups?”
Lucy Skywalker says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“Thanks a million Anthony for this article. It’s important to remember that there can never be an energy compromise with warmers because ultimately they seek energy/resource deprivation…………………… to the point of genocide. Interesting responses here, but there is also an awful lot of opinionating from inadequate knowledge, and negative generalizing about “the other side” that hinders informed debate. I still just want to build up information. So often, it’s not that one side is right and the other wrong, but that there are important truths and values on all sides.”
___________________________
The basic questions, AND the thoughtful response above, prompt me to make another observation: If History is indeed prologue to the future, it’s going to be a very, very bumpy ride; it’s not the science, it’s not the math, it’s the people that are the problem; and every little thing that makes every one of them who they are today, all 6.5 billion of them.
While we are beating up on GM…
(PS: GM – Keep posting. You are welcome here in a way we would not be on some sites that would seem to share your views)
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 10:59 am
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.
Other commentators have dealt with the birth rate thing. (In fact it drops with wealth but that “signal” is often hidden by migration “noise”.)
I just wanted to re-assure you that with (for all practical purposes) unlimited cheap energy, new resources can be both reached and/or created that are far beyond us now.
There are a few pointers here as well as much discussion on the forum pages;
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/fusion_world/
GM says: (August 10, 2010 at 1:05 am): [about naturally occurring crude oil] “And there are unlimited quantities of it, right?”
Probably not, but we’ll never run out of it.
If GM can wrap his head around that one, he’ll be half way to enlightenment. 🙂
redneck says:
August 10, 2010 at 3:49 pm
One advantage though, there is nothing more unnerving and frightening for a liberal/progressive than running into a educated redneck. It turns their whole world upside down.
=================================
ROTFL thank you!
GM says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:25 am
David, UK said on Finding an energy common ground between “Warmers” and “Skeptics”
If something is truly believed to be dangerous to human existence, you don’t impose a tax on it; you ration it, or in extreme cases you ban it
Precisely.
And knowledge. What about knowledge? Do you also propose to ban thinking?
What about the human brain? Do you propose to ‘ban’ that too?
Your solution is worse than the problem …