Guest post by David Archibald
Ira Glickstein’s post promoting clean coal has prompted me to offer a few slides from a presentation I had prepared. One of the things that gets me about clean coal is that the same people who are urging restraint are quite happy to halve the life of our coal reserves.
My thesis is that the rising oil price will drive inter-fuel substitution to the highest value markets, which are those transport applications that require a high-density liquid fuel with good storage characteristics – essentially diesel and jet fuel. Coal will be substituted for oil into the transport fuels market. That in turn will make it too valuable to burn for power generation, in which nuclear will substitute for coal. I am a thorium nut as well as a coal-to-liquids (CTL) proponent. The nuclear industry has financed a lot of the AGW hysteria, as they saw this as the only way they could sell nuclear plants against coal. They needn’t have bothered. At the current oil price and above, coal is diesel that is waiting to go through a CTL plant. At US$120 per barrel, it becomes worthwhile to close existing coal-fired power generation and replace it with nuclear, taking the hit on the capital charge of the idled coal plant.
Some people call for US energy independence but have no practical idea of how that could be achieved. Others, strangely, rail against the concept. So, here follows a plan for US energy independence by 2020. The technology exists and it is costed and affordable.
I like it David, a lot.
I’ve heard of thorium but haven’t looked into it. What is it’s biggest obstacle right now?
Better get crackin. Takes years to engineer and construct plants. Of course regulatory permitting can take years if projects don’t get entangled by the likes of NGOs.
Perhaps if the movie “The Graduate” were done today,
the one word advice given to the graduate would be “thorium”.
Nuclear power generation makes all kinds of sense. It is a reliable, robust, and affordable alternative to coal and it produces no CO2. Wind, solar, and other energy sources will only play a minor part and can never be the foundation of our energy future. I don’t care about CO2, but if we set a national goal to replace coal with nuclear over the next 20 – 30 years, it would be perfectly fine with me. Our energy future would be secure, and the climate alarmist crowd would have to find something else to whine about.
If the climate alarmists, the UN, and politicians were sincere, they would be pushing nuclear like crazy. The fact that they do not promote nuclear power generation as the best alternative to coal makes me question their true agenda.
Is it April 1 already?
I’m a big fan of all things nuclear, and I like your plan but I’d like evidence that the nuclear industry is financing (alleged) AGW hysteria.
I also believe your nuclear plant cost assumption is high by at least a factor of 2. The new modular designs should be brought in at 2000 MWe for about $1.5 billion, barring legal delays. Throw in potential legal delays and it might get higher.
Oops, hit the “Post” button too soon. In my ‘April 1’ comment, I meant to add that it’ll take a miracle (or catastrophe) to get our government to approve scary nuke power. In other words, the political will is lacking. Not sure how to get popular support for such an endeavor… and that’s the key, and that’s the challenge.
David–
You said, “The nuclear industry has financed a lot of the AGW hysteria, as they saw this as the only way they could sell nuclear plants against coal. ”
Can you support this assertion more convincingly than those who have asserted that Big Oil funds(ed) the skeptic movement?
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the place to look for information on the Thorium cycle:
Are you promoting the Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactor article by Robert Hargraves and Ralph Moir? http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/download/file.php?id=791
Nuclear power is definitely the added path we need to overcome fossil fuel cost and meet our needs for energy. Too bad we live in an era of obstructionistic attitudes from the likes of those who marched around the halls of IPPC conventions.
I recall we were all supposed to have our own small backyard nuclear powerplant to power our homes. I liked the idea, but the ignorance of politicians, bureaucrats, and media has poluted real energy progress in the U.S.A.
Nukes are great. Don’t forget creating the nuclear work force in the planning. Current plants are struggling with aging workforce issues. Throwing new construction into the mix will aggravate that — it already has in the little bit of recent movement towards new nuclear and probable construction restart of the mothballed Bellefonte reactors.
2020 is only 9 years away. After 38 1/2 years of nuclear related experience, I don’t see things turning around that quickly.
I love fairy tales. The next technology break-through is always around the corner!
Have you wondered why no one has built a commercial thorium reactor? Maybe, because it is not economically practical.
Also, instead of spending money on CTL, wouldn’t it be cheaper to do battery electric vehicles (Nissan Leaf) or beter yet, extended range electric vehicles (Chevrolet Volt). That way we can use coal to generate electric power ( a known technology) to power electric or extended range electric vehicles (also known and proven technology).
After reading this article:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/gasoline-84801677.html
I wrote the professor referenced.
He said the university has been told by legal counsel not to discuss anything regarding this technology.
Sounds like someone is getting ready to start producing gasoline from coal at $30 a barrel.
Greenies are just going to have a fit over this.
David-
After reading the presentations at:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com
I, too, have become a thorium nut. It appears that it was Ike’s “military/industrial complex” that kept us from going to thorium years ago.
Anyone with any doubts about nuclear power in this form, should go to the website above. Yoo too will be convinced.
The extensive programs required to bring thorium reactor research & development to actual commercial viability aside, the existing mature & proven light water reactor designs can be online relatively rapidly with known excellent safety & performance records.
John
Hang onto the Iraqi Dinar if you have any. Thats all I’m saying.
Your thoughts essentially mirror my own. The problem of course is that politicians have no great love of logical and practical plans.
The free market will solve that you say? Well, not after government influence promoted by environmental whackjobs is done screwing it up.
gallopingcamel says:
January 1, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the place to look for information on the Thorium cycle:
Comment. Oak Ridge also host the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and employ very staunch AGW people like ocean acidity alarmist Richard Feely.
Lawyers use a “Chinese Wall” when different parts of the firm are representing different angles. Surely it is not beyond the with of ORNL to do this.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years
I’ve been aware of Thorium for about 2 years now and when looking at the stats, it should be a not brainer.
Back in the 50’s. Thoruim was a contender for power plants, but, due to the cold war and the need for fissionable materials for weapons, Uranium won out. Thorium’s waste is not weaponizable.
Besides the upside of non-weaponizable waste, the storage life of Thorium is in the hundreds of years instead of thousands. Compare the 200 to 1 ratio of Uranium to Thorium needed for the same amount of energy and the amount of waste is another upside. With Thorium being about 3 times more plentiful than Uranium, another upside.
I have read that, with modification, present reactors can be capable of Thorium energy production.
I suppose the military would require a balance between a Uranium and Thorium power infrastructure.
I cant begin to comprehend the problem of every car in the USA having a battery for power.
Natural gas to liquid, coal to liquid, mine the ocean bottom for Methane Clathrates.
There are hundreds of alternative methods of getting liquid fuel being researched.
Thorium powered nuclear energy plants. Its all available and it is within reach, so please lets let wind and solar power become personal and private concerns.
The USA has only itself to blame for not being energy independent. And those “ourselves” need to be voted out.
Fast track it – construction jobs.
Electric cars………hmmmmmmmmmm.
Maybe, electric cars should only be allowed to recharge from their own power grid….like solar, wind….etc. I mean, in maintaining the highest standards of saving the planet and all. I wonder how that would work out in the UK in the winter time. Trouble with electric cars is someone owning one needs a real car to do everything else…such a waste of resources.
Mustafa –
The magnets used in electric vehicles make heavy use of rare-earth elements. The prime source of such material is China. China has ALREADY declared that it will tighten the limits on its rare-earth exports.
We would be no better off than using OPEC oil.
IEEE Spectrum: Is Thorium the Nuclear Fuel of the Future?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future
IEEE Spectrum: Q&A: Thorium Reactor Designer Ratan Kumar Sinha
The head of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre’s reactor design updates IEEE Spectrum on India’s progress with an alternative nuclear fuel
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/qa-thorium-reactor-designer-ratan-kumar-sinha