This article was sent to me by Charles Hart, and I have to say, I really like this quote from Curt Stager in Fast Company. Between the extremes of Hansen’s pronouncements about coal death trains and people in Britain having to choose between food and fuel, this is where we need to be.
This is the middle ground I believe we can all agree on. Forget reconciliation attempts, let’s just get busy.
Stager writes:
In other words, I want you to help save the world. If green nukes are even half as promising as their proponents claim, then supporting their development may be our best hope for a sane, sustainable, and abundant energy future.
He’s talking about Thorium reactors, which we’ve covered here on WUWT before. Here are some of the stories:
Finding an energy common ground between “Warmers” and “Skeptics”
US Energy Independence by 2020
China announces thorium reactor energy program, Obama still dwelling on “Sputnik moments”
David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security
Curt Stager’s article in Fast Company is well written and appeals to the layman, cutting through a lot of the tech clutter related to thorium based nuclear power. It is also encouraging because we have a former nuclear protester having a “light bulb moment”, and it’s the good old incandescent kind, not a CFL twisty bulb. I recommend reading it, and passing it along. – Anthony
=============================================================
Will Green Nukes Save the World?
BY FC Expert Blogger Curt Stager
Amidst the darkening clamor over global warming, declining fossil fuel reserves, conflicts over oil supplies, and rumors of heavy-handed governmental attempts to curb our carbon-hungry lifestyles, a welcome glow of hope is emerging on the energy technology horizon. To most viewers, it looks green, or at least “greenish.” And–perhaps surprisingly to those of us who remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl–it’s radioactive.
As a climate scientist, I’m well-aware of the perils of global warming and I’ve long favored a timely switch to alternative energy sources. However, I’ve also drawn the line at nuclear power, having been an anti-nuke protester in college. I was therefore horrified when prominent environmentalists first began to suggest that nuclear power is preferable to fossil fuels, as though their apocalyptic climate rhetoric had trapped them into minimizing the risks of meltdowns, radioactive waste, bomb proliferation, and nuclear terrorism.
But my attitude changed recently when I raised this subject with an environmental scientist friend whose son is training to become nuclear engineer. “He’s working on a new kind of reactor,” my friend explained, “It can’t melt down, it makes only minimal waste, and it can’t be used for making bombs. It doesn’t even use uranium, which is rare and dangerous to handle; it uses thorium instead, which is common and safer to work with.”
…
Some proponents envision “a nuke in every home,” because self-contained thorium reactors can be built small enough to fit on a trailer truck bed. Such green nukes would dam no rivers and produce no acid rain or greenhouse gases, and their electrical output could create clean hydrogen fuels from water as well as seemingly limitless direct heating and lighting.
Full article here:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1727914/will-green-nukes-save-the-world
===========================================================
Here’s what Thorium looks like:
Learn more about it here
You can even buy Thorium in the raw on as a refined rod, on Ebay.
Nuclear fuel is not so scary when you can put your hands on it so easily, is it?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The fastcompany.com article was actually quite well balanced. None of the gilded lilies I’ve come to expect on this subject in the blogosphere. A bit pessimistic about fossil fuels and not very well informed on hydrogen but the author did enough homework on thorium to see the pitfalls and had a healthy amount of skepticism about commercial development of the technology. All in all the best article I’ve seen on the subject so far.
John Brookes,
You seem to have some interesting assumptions.
Are you implying that the full cost of windmill power has been taken into account?
Please tell us what the environmental impacts of CO2 are.
I have often been an advocate for local, small nuclear-type energy plants as a proper addition to the massive hydro/coal plants currently used to serve much larger geographical areas. Maybe we are finally beginning to see the miniaturization that has long been a major effort in other technological areas, turn its attention to energy generation. For sure, the massive footprints of wind and solar fields are going in the WRONG ecological direction. And I remain incredibly surprised that environmentalists continue to advocate for the production of such monstrosities.
But..but but,who runs `big thorium`?
Will prominent sceptics have to give up all the luxuries funded by big oil?
Looks like they`ll have to sell the private jets, and fire the dancing girls.
Mike Mangan`s right, an alarmists attitude to nukes pretty much indicates whether they`re worth talking to at all.
If the catastrophe industry wins the gw argument, as they still might, we`re going to have to promote thorium like hell to keep the lights on.
Maybe we should start now.
I am afraid that your and mine first reaction is that there is a middle ground with the greens and that both sides can be reasonable.
However, we should not forget that the extreme greens (extreme environmentalists) do not like people. They see humans as a disease and seek any way possible to decrease our numbers and/or ways to make us do less in our lives. (For them, the ideal human population varies from 100 million to 2 billion.) So, green nukes are not on the table with them as good, clean, cheap energy is the last thing they want. They see it as giving a child a machine gun; we would keep on having a good life and enjoying our world.
Greens love the wind and solar initiatives despite the huge non-green impact and footprint of these alternative, crappy energy sources as they know that they are hyper-expensive and will put an economic burden on us that will cripple us from doing other things – we would not be able to afford as much, energy would be so expensive (between the bills and the tax-burden subsidies). They love this idea.
It is a given to me that most people care for their environment and would like to keep it good and healthy for everybody. But the extreme greens would like to pretend that they have the moral high ground and that they are the only ones who care. How arrogant of them.
So, we should not expect a reasonable middle ground with the environmentalists as the group is largely driven by extremists who do not want any cheap energy. They would have us go back to Little House on the Prairie as a model for living, having not even hydroelectric energy to use.
Child proof nuclear reactor for the home — doesn’t sound like a “swell” idea to me but I do agree that power generation needs to be decentralized and cheap.
Thorium reactors for commercial use might make sense.
The point [of non-nuclear] is being missed.
The article makes the point that the use of thorium reactors would mean endless and increasing availability of safe and cheap power.
The power companies do not want cheap.
The green/enviros’ do not want endless and plentiful.
Nobody [much] cares about safe.
At least not in the UK, and the gov cares not a jot about the dying elderly and/or poor…..less elderly means savings on benefits [the state pension is regarded as a benefit] and health costs.
Ideally, all those not on private pensions should be gracious and die at thei 65th b’day !
The “thorium” electrodes advertised are in fact thoriated tungsten electrodes. Tungsten doped with thorium oxide. They are used as welding electrodes in the tungsten-inert-gas process. I note the cost on ebay at $9.99….at a welding products supplier they are about £1.25 each here in the UK, cheaper in bulk.
They are very mildly radioactive, but warning are given about inhaling the dust. Not that many employers pay any attention.
Oh, Anthony. Your naive innocence about our enemy may in the end be more dangerous than the enemy.
Our enemy does not want clean power or clean anything.
Our enemy wants the end of the human race. (Well, except for the saving remnant, which they imagine to be themselves.)
You cannot compromise with mass murderers.
I hope that Anthony will reconsider that recommendation “Forget reconciliation attempts, let’s just get busy”. That implies that there is a “we” who are on the right track, and a “they” who are wrong, and so who can be ignored as ignorant, immoral, and unworthy of discussion or perhaps even of existence. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the remark, since Anthony has led the way in promoting civility in the debate; and why be civil with someone who obviously unworthy of reconciliation?
You may know that one important reason for the initial success and hopeful prospects of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions is the deep commitment of the organisers to nonviolent social change. They schooled themselves in that approach, and carried it through except when being physically attacked by Mubarek’s hoodlums.
The recommendation that we ‘forget reconciliation’ would take disputes back to the days before Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.
Surely Anthony did not mean that it be taken literally!
Thanks Anthony –
a good article, as it represents a call for reason. A beginning.
But I kind of had to giggle at his quote “If overly rosy sales pitches for this new technology mislead us or even just make people suspicious, they may slow its implementation.” Thinking say ….. Wind? Solar? Ha ha ha! A good warning – but selectively applied?
And while he sure had no problem identifying those thorium zealots on one hand he can’t see his own behavior in the same light. He took time to cry “time is of the essence; cheap fossil fuels are running out, further greenhouse gas buildups could trigger a runaway super-hothouse”. A runaway super hothouse? C’mon, man!
How can he not see himself as zealot with statements such as “our recent forebears also unwittingly caused much death and destruction due to mining accidents, pollution, and wars”? Uhhh …. how about the positive aspects of cheap, abundant energy?
And while I DO agree with his closing statement that
– “there’s no such thing as a perfect solution to our energy crisis and it’s important to acknowledge that even LFTR-nukes have a bit of a dark side. Choosing the best path forward will require a thoughtful and open discussion” –
a call for “Reason” can be implemented at ANY time.
Advice: choose your friends carefully. This “friend” said the following:
“It can’t melt down, it makes only minimal waste, and it can’t be used for making bombs. It doesn’t even use uranium, which is rare and dangerous to handle; it uses thorium instead, which is common and safer to work with.”
It can’t melt down – because the reactor fuel is already a liquid. That’s not actually a good thing, because inevitably there will be a fuel leak at some point. I much prefer the idea of solid fuel that can only leak *if* there is a meltdown, rather than a liquid fuel that can leak during normal operation.
It makes minimal waste – it makes about the same amount of waste as any other reactor, but the waste is shorter lived (only a few thousand years rather than a few hundred thousand), which is indeed a good thing.
it can’t be used for making bombs – thorium can’t, but thorium can’t be used to generate energy in a nuclear reactor anyway. Likewise, the uranium you dig out of the ground can’t be used to make a bomb. In the reactor, uranium is bred from the thorium, and that can be used to make bombs (indeed, both the US and India have designed and tested bombs made from uranium derived from thorium). It is more difficult to work with, but this applies both to bomb making and power generation.
It doesn’t even use uranium – false, yes it does, thorium doesn’t fission, and the thorium reactor works by breeding uranium. It breeds a different type of uranium to that found in the ground, U-233 instead of U-235, which is actually much more difficult to handle as its daughter products are strong gamma emitters. This means fuel reprocessing and waste handling has to be completed robotically behind heavy radiation shields. This makes creating useful nuclear bombs more challenging, but it is a viable material for a terrorist “dirty” bomb.
which is rare and dangerous to handle – uranium dug out of the ground is neither rare nor terribly dangerous to handle. They used to use it in glass making not that long ago. You can buy it on eBay in fact! As if that proves anything.
This may sound negative, but I am actually an advocate of nuclear power. But thorium over uranium is massively oversold by advocates of thorium power. On balance, thermal uranium remains the better choice (possibly augmented by thorium as per CANDU) and is likely to be for many years to come, and overselling thorium will do more damage to the nuclear industry in the long run (due to unrealistic expectations).
from what I can read Stager is just another ignorant twit who claims to be a scientist. He opposed nuclear because “HE PROTESTED IT IN COLLEGE” ??? Really, we are supposed to cheer the fact that this obviously biased and ignorant moron was finally convinced by thorium ? Please, spare me … I’m certain he still calls people at WUWT “deniers” and means it in the worst way. You compromise with people like that and you end up compromised …
REPLY: AFAIK, he’s never said a bad word about WUWT. Let’s not extend distrust without a clear example. – Anthony
I wonder if Curt Stager’s nuclear epiphany will similarly awaken in him the realisation that there might be a connexion between his anti-nuclear stance based on prejudice, ignorance and political dogma and his stance on global warming/climate change or whatever they are calling it these days.
Speaking personally, I do not want to be in the middle of anything, I just want to be left alone to get on with the rest of my life without being ever pestered, regulated, taxed, about what and how much I eat, drink, exercise, drive, consume, and menaced with a growing list of contagious diseases and anticipated catastrophes.
lol, an alternate reality strikes again. Mr. Stager seems to assume there is a reluctance for the skeptics to embrace nuclear energy or that somehow thorium is a “green” cause. I know of no serious skeptical point of view that doesn’t encourage nuclear energy, thorium or not. Mr. Stager, skeptics are not the obstacle to nuclear energy. But, I agree. Let’s get moving on this! We need energy, and we need it now.
From what I’ve read on thorium generated energy is very promising. In fact, too much so. John Brookes is correct when he says, “Like any other sort of energy generation, you need to count the full costs – …” One of the things I’ve learned in my wanderings, there is no panacea. Thorium energy seems to be one.
Firstly Anthony and others, thorium is an element on the periodic table and does not require a capital T for text introduction, just like iron, carbon, helium and uranium. It’s primary mineralogical origin is monazite – probably the most beautiful and complex of all minerals, being a rare earth phoshate with more elements contained than any other, and with compositional variation. A gem size specimen shows beautiful yellow hues under the microscope. Go to beaches of Brazil, India and Australia to find specimens. I believe that in 50 years time the world will be powered by Th/U reactors.
REPLY: It has a capital T in the periodic table, and that’s where I was thinking, but you are right, it doesn’t need it. Thanks for the pendantic bulletin 😉 – Anthony
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
I love nukes. They are a way to an abundant energy future without destroying the landscape looking for fossil fuels. On the other hand…
I hate nukes. They mean an unavoidable radiation exposure for plant workers and a lasting waste disposal problem. On the other hand…
I love nukes. They preserve natural resources for the future, which may possibly include humans in some form. On the other hand,
I hate nukes. They can blow up millions of people and leave the world uninhabitable. On the other hand….
I love nukes. Thorough MAAD they make war unthinkable, opening up the possibility of a future without war.
I hate nukes. They curtail the release of CO2, which is necessary in increasing amounts if we are to feed untold billions of people. On the other hand,
I love nukes. They rid the world of nasty, nasty air pollution.
Yea, nukes. (on balance)
Uranium fuel rods can be handled quite safely. But people wear cotton gloves so as not to contaminate the rods. I remember a bloke who in the old days told me he carried plutonium rods in the trunk of his car.
What does France do with it’s nuclear waste?
The rabid left would never agree to anything other than total capitulation.
Their ability to move the goal post and cling to their prior lunacy knows no limits.
Even if new technology arrived to allow our autos to get 100 miles per gallon and run on waste water with no emissions they would oppose people needlessly driving when they should be walking, biking & taking transit in a compact higher density community to lesson the impact on nature.
And all of the many causes that have hooked up with AGW will always have a lengthy stream of excuses to justify the policies they demand.
Thanks Anthony –
a good article, as it represents a call for reason. A beginning.
But I kind of had to giggle at his quote “If overly rosy sales pitches for this new technology mislead us or even just make people suspicious, they may slow its implementation.” Thinking say ….. Wind? Solar? Ha ha ha! A good warning – but selectively applied?
And while he sure had no problem identifying those thorium zealots on one hand he can’t see his own behavior in the same light. He took time to cry “time is of the essence; cheap fossil fuels are running out, further greenhouse gas buildups could trigger a runaway super-hothouse”. A runaway super hothouse? C’mon, man!
How can he not see himself as zealot with statements such as “our recent forebears also unwittingly caused much death and destruction due to mining accidents, pollution, and wars”? Uhhh …. how about the positive aspects of cheap, abundant energy? Lord.
And while I DO agree with his closing statement that
– “there’s no such thing as a perfect solution to our energy crisis and it’s important to acknowledge that even LFTR-nukes have a bit of a dark side. Choosing the best path forward will require a thoughtful and open discussion” –
a call for “Reason” can be implemented at ANY time.
“And time is of the essence; cheap fossil fuels are running out, further greenhouse gas buildups could trigger a runaway super-hothouse…”
Once they figure out that natural gas and most oil is not really fossil and much more prevalent, produced from subducted/cooked ocean floor and the Earth’s core, the “cheap fossil fuels are running out” mantra will have to die.
Recent work using calcium carbonate, iron oxide, and water showed that at temperatures typical of a subduction zone, these chemicals very rapidly produce methane. That and hydrocarbons percolating up from the earth’s core (as described by the Russians) might explain why we are finding hydrocarbons almost anywhere that we drill deep enough. At greater than 7000 feet, it is hard to argue that these are from a real fossil source similar to coal. Subducted sea floor material probably does not qualify as fossil.
Thanks for yet another article showing the way forward.
May I recommend an essay by William Tucker titled E = MC2 in which he discusses the potential energy from various sources. I read it at Climate Realists blog 7/17/2010.
Well worth a read for the non-specialists amongst us.
Let’s just assume that everyone switched to thorium reactors, what would that do to nuclear medicine? Even with current reactors, the supplies run hot and cold such that it is not uncommon for nuke med departments at hospitals to sit idle for lack of material.
It isn’t a question of whether thorium reactors will be used. The Chinese will use them even if we don’t. That will give them an economic advantage. If we seriously want to compete in the economic realm, we will do so too. We can go first or we can go second, but we will go; <rant>unless, of course, we don’t value our freedom and are willing to let China as the world’s greatest economic power dictate everything to us. </rant>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/30/china-announces-thorium-reactor-energy-program-obama-still-dwelling-on-sputnik-moments/