President Obama in his recent SOTU address said that “this is our generation’s sputnik moment” referring to the need to use science and technology to develop cheaper clean energy (among other things). It seems the Chinese were listening because last week they announced a focused effort to achieve technological leadership in thorium molten salt reactors.
From EnergyFromThorium
The People’s Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology, it was announced in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference on Tuesday, January 25. An article in the Wenhui News followed on Wednesday (Google English translation). Chinese researchers also announced this development on the Energy from Thorium Discussion Forum.
See the Press report (Chinese) below along with partial translation:
http://whb.news365.com.cn/yw/201101/t20110126_2944856.htm
(partial google translation follows)
“Yesterday, as the Chinese Academy of Sciences started the first one of the strategic leader in science and technology projects, “the future of advanced nuclear fission energy – nuclear energy, thorium-based molten salt reactor system” project was officially launched. The scientific goal is to use 20 years or so, developed a new generation of nuclear energy systems, all the technical level reached in the trial and have all intellectual property rights.”
What is a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”? Please see this previous WUWT post on this technology.
Currently there is no US effort to develop a thorium MSR. Readers of this blog and Charles Barton’s Nuclear Green blog know that there has been a grass-roots effort underway for over five years to change this. The formation of the Thorium Energy Alliance and the International Thorium Energy Organization have been other attempted to convince governmental and industrial leaders to carefully consider the potential of thorium in a liquid-fluoride reactor. There have been many international participants in the TEA and IThEO conferences, but none from China.
Will the US accept the challenge or allow the Chinese to dominate advanced nuclear technology too? Using a technology invented in the US 40 years ago no less!
This isn’t a “Sputnik moment” Mr. President, it’s a “shit or get off the pot” moment for US energy policy. The US excelled at the space race, partly because of the swift kick in the pants that Sputnik provided. Perhaps this announcement will be the embarrassment like Sputnik for the US government that will compel them to finally do something about our energy future besides tilt at windmills.
============================================
Thanks to Charles Hart for the tip and info gathering.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
eadler says: January 31, 2011 at 4:50 pm
“Yucca Mountain was not a slam dunk as a safe site to store nuclear waste.
The coup de grace was a previously undiscovered fault line in 2007 which bisects the storage facility. None of the research on the safety of Yucca Mt. considered the fault.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/25/usa”
————————————————————————
Fault lines have zero relevance to the mountain’s usefulness as a waste repository. If a large magnitude earthquake struck there, it might prevent any additional storage due to the passageways being structurally unsafe for workers. All previous stored waste would just sit there, whether a quake hit or not. It’s what it is supposed to do.
I have an innumerate friend in Las Vegas who is scared of the possibility of Plutonium getting into the water table. This is a typical scare tactic that doesn’t stand up to quantitative analysis. If anywhere in the world already HAS plutonium in the groundwater, it’s around Yucca mountain, because that’s where the plutonium has rested since the hundreds of underground bomb tests there.
Instead of rational waste storage policy, the US has a defacto policy of storing power plant waste at the generating plants.
Also, using Wikipedia as NOT a good reference for nuke power discussion. Their anti-nuke bias is rather extreme. Here’s a well-researched paper claiming nuclear in the US is cheaper than natural gas. Several other countries are listed also, as local factors affect costs:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Alright folks. This is my last entry in this thread. I’m outnumbered by LFTR cheerleaders, evidently including the blog owner, by at least 10 to 1 and my efforts to present contrary opinion have landed me in the moderation queue. I understand and since I don’t want to remain in the timeout corner I’ll duck out.
Who’s right isn’t going to be determined until if and when commercial LFTR reactors start going on line and that will take years if not decades. I said my peace, I heard yours. No one’s opinion appears to have been swayed. I’ll just reiterate that a nation that can’t reproduce 50 year-old reactor technology to reliably power a nuclear submarine isn’t a nation that is going to lead the world in producing an economical LFTR reactor. If it becomes a successful technology it won’t be China that does it. Mark my words.
To Dave Springer (January 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm)
Qualifications noted, Dave. Thanks.
Dave Springer says: (January 31, 2011 at 6:54 pm)
Alright folks. This is my last entry in this thread.
I hope you will reconsider. We need the depth and spread.
Dave Springer, one problem with any genetically engineered bio-fuel production is that you can’t economically keep the organisms seperate from the environment. Photosynthesis (which we’re not going to improve on) is only about 3 to 10% efficient. That’s much worse than a photovoltaic array, and you don’t have to coddle solar cells to keep them warm, fed, happy, and disease free. If you have to build a greenhouse you’d make more money growing off-season blueberries.
They will stumble the first time they hit a challenge that is not in a cookbook somewhere. big dollars for guys who can solve tough problems. spruce up your cv guys.
( 25 years experience working in the region.. defense and consumer electronics)
The whole “development” meme is just a distraction.
We have dozens of already developed technologies for all sorts of “alternative” power sources. There simply is no energy shortage. Thorium fuel bundles are already being run in exiting nuclear reactors (Russian design and in India) and some are designed and fabricated by a US company.
What’s needed is the “get off the pot” part. Shut down the department of energy and get the Feds Out Of The Way. The rest is sitting on the shelf, ready to go.
Heck, we had Toshiba offer a FREE very small scale nuke to a town in Alaska just to get one demonstrated and approved. The US Govt choked it.
What we have is NOT a shortage of technology nor a need for ‘research’, what we have is a broken government standing in the way.
Say it out aloud, E.M.Smith, we need reconciliation…
Dave Springer:
At January January 31, 2011 at 6:39 pm you ask me:
“Who died and left you the authority to determine who can say what on this thread?”
No person died but it seems your brain has.
I did not define the subject of this thread as being “China announces thorium reactor energy program, Obama still dwelling on “Sputnik moments” “.
Anthony Watts defined the subject of this thread when he posted the item (above) that this thread exists to discuss and, therefore, he “determined” what is appropriate for discussion in this thread. I had no part in that and there is no reason for anybody to think I did.
But you have come on to this thread with repeated attempts to disrupt the discuusion by irrelevant, untrue and stupid blather about renewables. In response, I have repeatedly attempted to stop your trolling behaviour and I have taken the trouble to give you sufficient information to demonstrate to you – and to others – that (in addition to being irrelevant) your disuptive comments are untrue (see my posts at January 31, 2011 at 3:28 am and January 31, 2011 at 10:47 am).
I repeat. Stop trolling this thread.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
January 31, 2011 at 11:58 pm
“They will stumble the first time they hit a challenge that is not in a cookbook somewhere. ”
That reminds me of the last “sputnik” moment of the US; Going to the moon.
There was no way the US could solve the problem of designing a rocket that had repeatability regarding quality. It was almost random every time whether it would explode on the ground, or in the air.
German scientists were almost kidnapped to fill up a whole town, and that did the trick.
Remember Wehrner von Braun and his SS assistant?
And it was the same, or even worse for the russians. They too kidnapped germans to fix the problem. Under slightly worse living conditions, one might add.
@roger Carr
Thanks for recognizing that contrary opinions are valuable.
For whoever else it was that said something about biofuel always taking away valuable resources (even cornstalks) that’s simply not true. I posted this before on WUWT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_Unlimited
This company is building a pilot biofuel plant located about 20 miles from where I live in Texas. The pilot plant is located next to a wastewater treatment plant. It grows a patented genetically modified cyanobacteria (algae) in wastewater in a process called helioculture. The cyanobacteria are genetically modified to produce any of an assortment of alkanes, ethanol, and hydrocarbons that need no refining. They believe the pilot plant will produce 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre.
Please read the article and references before going on further about how biofuels displace food, destroy soil, or other misconceptions. It doesn’t even use valuable fresh water but rather brackish or gray water that is otherwise a nuisance to treat and dispose of. This company is well funded and has well known industry players and scientists behind it. It is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts largely because that’s a hotbed of talent in synthetic biology. It’s all about getting the biology right. After you have the right organism the rest is as easy as finding a place where there is a source of wastewater and reliable sunlight. Where I live in Texas is ideal. We’re constantly fighting city governments to stop them from dumping treated wastewater into our lakes and rivers instead of using it to irrigate golf courses and stuff like that. Now there’s a great use for it – making biofuel in helioculture.
Dave Springer:
At February 1, 2011 at 10:13 am you persist with your trolling.
I suggested that you read the links I provided before writing anything else about biofuels. You clearly have not.
This thread is about the thorium reactor and it is not about biofuels. It is being (deliberately ?) deflected from its purpose by your mistaken and ridiculus assertions concerning the different subject of biofuels. Your comments are so mistaken as to be risible and you have ignored the facts which I and others have provided to correct your multiple misunderstandings.
I am sure that you are feeling pleased at your success in deflecting this thread from its purpose and onto your nonsense. But I find such blatant troll behaviour annoying, and I am sure others do, too.
Stop it.
REPLY: Ok let’s call this fight over – Anthony
Richard
Well, I’m sorry to see this excellent science blog somewhat diverted into politics and ad hom attacks on whole countries.
Thorium reactors must surely be worth a good look. Never underestimate the inertia of vested interests, whether they be invested in U235 type reactors, or in Carbon scams. I seem to recall that the UK would have pushed on with Reactors had it not been for North Sea gas, which brought the trumpeted “dash for gas” electricity generation. Gas power stations being cheap/quick/good financial returns I believe.
Lots of gas being found now, too. Shale gas etc.
Incidentally, sad to see the beginning of the slow decline of the American Empire. As a Brit, I know the signs – we are further “down” than the USA, and have ecoloonies in charge.
As of now, in rounded %, UK is getting electricity 38% from gas (CCGT); 41% coal; 16% nuclear; 3% Wind; 2% other. Some 50 GW, with wind doing 1 1/2 GW out of 5+ GW installed wind capacity. Its a windy day – we usually get <1%, at vast expense.
@Anthony
Thought you might be interested in this. If you google thorium reactor this article is currently the 8th hit from the top.
Nice page rank. Interestingly the text google displays in the listing is my comment describing the ONRL research reactor.
And here we all thought, because you told us so, that you would not post any more. Sheesh, coming across like a journalist more and more.
keith at hastings uk says:
February 1, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I’m guessing you don’t really know what an ad hominem is. Certainly this thread, though it may contain a few argumentum ad hominems by posters, is not an argumentum ad hominem in and of itself. Really, look it up.
Mark
Mark T says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Mark, sorry for the loose English. I was rushed. I meant the somewhat emotional attacks on certain countries, coupled with similar emotional defence of US creativity, etc.
Where I come from, it would be regarded as close to prejudice to assume that the Chinese cannot make technological advances on their own. And why not start by copying? Cheaper and quicker.
For me, the key factor is that technological solutions in the USA (and here in the UK) are being constrained by dirigiste politicians in the grip of Global Warming panic and what Americans call pork barrel politics (I think).
I take no pleasure in seeing my transAtlantic friends hog tie themselves, and have family in the USA, as it happens.
Apologies to Anthony and the Mods if this is rather far off topic.
What’s the deal with the silly anti-global warming ads?
Everybody knows that CO2 is an infrared absorber (and that FF’s are finite). It heats up the lower atmosphere to a certain and definite degree which will cause greater storms (yes, even snowstorms). Once all you anti GW dummies finish off the ICECAPS (by your insidious desire to dismiss alarm, thus making the rest of us to continue to burn FF’s because “nobody cared to make us burn carbonfree”), there will be no more snow (and a dying world for the future). This is the ONLY planet, please let’s keep the CO2 levels at a closer to natural 300 ppm! This requires over 100,000 square miles of solar and billions of batteries OR simply LFTR
Pro LFTR!
Go China too! (Maybe they will sell us our electricity to power our electric cars at a rate cheaper than the going rates for “not so easy oil” in the not so distant future).
Fireofenergy
Apologies for being drastic, but YA! we need to stop CO2 emissions (without the need to say at all costs). It does not have to be expensive 🙂
fireofenergy,
The ads are chosen by WordPress.
And clearly you have not read the article and comments. Or other related comments and articles about China and CO2. Really, your comments seem to be coming from another planet. Maybe another universe. Use the search box. Put in “CO2”. Or “China.” Try to learn something, instead of regurgitating unthinking talking points.
You praise China, while China is building 2 – 4 new coal-fired power plants every week, and has announced plans to continue at that rate until at least 2024. U.S. CO2 emissions are decreasing, but China’s CO2 emissions are skyrocketing. While praising China you demonize CO2. That makes zero sense.
CO2 is entirely harmless and beneficial, so I am unconcerned. More is better. China is doing its part to raise CO2 emissions far in excess of the rest of the world. Yet you praise them. WUWT??
Finally, China will never be selling electricity to the U.S. because of the line losses. Most of the power would be dissipated as heat well before it reached the U.S.
In clicking on your name I now realize that I am trying to reason with a crazy person. My mistake. I’ll bow out now and let you have the last word. The really frightening thing to me is that you’re probably over 18, and have the right to vote. Egad.