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.
Lady Life Grows, if you’re never satisfied because of fallout, then simply r–
[Self-snip; I came to my senses just in time. In my defense, I point out that the poster couldn’t possibly have been serious either.]
@Lady Life Grows says:
August 11, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Your points 1 and 2 are completely fallacious. “Normal” IQ ranges from something like 80 to maybe 200, with 100 more or less “median”. 2-4 IQ points means nothing. And where are these bright people being irradiated? From C14 and Be whatever formed by natural processes? If you lived in South Texas, your water well may have been completed in a significant roll-front uranium deposit (or if up the hydrologic flow in oxidized rocks, in the highly radioactive daughter products like Bi, Te and Ra and so forth left when a uranium deposit is redissolved and moved). I never heard any horror stories in the years I lived and explored for uranium there.
Point 2: Radioactivity is monitored beyond belief. The effects of radioactive poisoning are well understood. Please show us some news releases or other links to prove that a whole lot of shenanigans are going on out there (don’t refer us to Karen Silkwood). Maybe in Russia or some mongrel state, but not in the West.
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
Well yes. Except for the hot backup required for solar fluctuations. Like from transient clouds or cloudy days.
BTW is that 24/7 of production? Otherwise you have to multiply by 1 divided by % per cent per day output to come up with comparable numbers.
And note that I said solar/wind will not be viable without cheap storage.
1. the brightest people have been harmed the most by fallout, though we are “only” talking 2 to four IQ points. To me, that is a horrifying price.
That may be the best explanation of our current administration I’ve ever heard.
Finally, don’t get too worked up over fusion reactors. Most fusion reactions that are practicable result in the creation of 14 MeV neutrons, which have a nasty habit of transmuting materials into radioactive isotopes (not a contradiction to the above; neutron irradiation is not radioactivity).
Uh. The Polywell boys, Tri-Alpha Energy, and Focus Fusion all have plans that include minimal neutron production. It is called pB11 fuel. You can look it up.
kwik says:
August 11, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Hmmmm.
One could imagine a fleet of nuclear ships being mobile power-plants.
Lingering offshore in international waters.
Ready to connect to sea-going power cables.
Selling power to countries…….like the U.K. when their offshore wind-farms fails.
hehe.
—–
…It’s already being done!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
“1. the brightest people have been harmed the most by fallout, though we are “only” talking 2 to four IQ points. To me, that is a horrifying price.”
That’s just about a half-cup of coffee’s worth. I would suggest you have an insulin pump surgically implanted, with concentrated caffine on a measured drip.
After all, we wouldn’t want you to go around a point or two under par – doesn’t seem like you’ve any to spare in the first place.