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.
Along the lines of what I believe Erik is inferring by the BBC transcript
I’ve always enjoyed when talking to an “environmentalist” asking them the question, “if you’re worries about climate change are shown to unfounded, would you be happy?”
I get a few reactions.
Probably most common is, hmmm, hadn’t thought about that before, let’s think for an extremely short time and toss out an answer and it is usually no.
The next most common is No
The next most common is get angry and call me something, or walk away
I’m still waiting for a “yes”
The level of understanding of the benefits society has/is derived/ing from carbon based fuels is woefully low. Those benefits are not limited to the energy produced by consumption, but also the benefits of releasing additional CO2 into the air.
I can’t believe coal/oil/power companies just give away CO2 like that. They should charging for something they have complete title over (just kidding on the last paragraph, although technically, there is an argument for it)
I agree on the thorium reactors. That is the future and we better get busy on it. The “ultra-greens” are STILL opposed to thorium, because it still produces some amount of “bad stuff”. However, when you talk about “bad stuff” that gets produced in the manufacture of solar panels and flourescent/LED bulbs, they don’t want to hear about that…
Jerome Ravetz says:
February 16, 2011 at 6:28 am
===========================
That’s a pretty extreme interpretation of “Forget reconciliation attempts, let’s just get busy.” Indeed, you’re running a fine line of mis-attribution to the thoughts and meanings of such statements.
From the article:
From the article:
“Now, what’s the catch? My gut tells me that anything that sounds too good to be true probably is. And I’ve spent enough time around religious and political extremists to sense blind evangelical fervor in some of the more vocal supporters of thorium. There’s also an unhelpful dose of ego and machismo in some of the technical discussions online, as in “I’m right because my resume is longer than yours,” that can drive potentially informative dissenters into silence (see it in the comment string following an article in Wired).”
I find it ironic that a climate activist “sense[s] blind evangelical fervor” in religion and politics but, somehow his “gut” didn’t alert him to the possibility of AGW extremism.
Jerome Ravetz
“why be civil with someone who obviously unworthy of reconciliation?”
Pots, kettles and black comes to mind here, given the standard approach of alarmists to us. I am getting used to the hysterical personal abuse from these types, which every day now becomes more strident and vile. Put your own house in order Mr Ravetz and then come and tell us how we should behave.
Jerome Ravetz
“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”
Indeed, very laudable but what has that to do with the social change envisaged by climate activists?
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g ]
The early comment “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.” showed his basic thinking. It is true that Thorium reactors are a good solution, and I am glad he came around to this, but he still is convinced of the danger of global warming, and this would bias much of the implementation time scale he would consider. I think efforts to convince he and others of the error of CAGW is still necessary so more realistic time scale conversion to nuclear could be done (and it does eventually need to be done).
Can we have a bit of perspective here, please. When will the first commercially viable thorium plant be available? If modular 90 MW nukes are 2025 at the earliest, then I would bet on 2035 for this given past experience. Fine, but there is a huge amount of investment needed now in technology that works if we are to bring prosperity to the rest of the human race in the developing world, and thereby improve our environment. And if we are to maintain security of supply in developed countries. (I have no truck with the Malthusians unless they are volunteering to be the first sacrifices of a new eugenics, instead of the poor of the developing countries.) If we do not solve today’s problems re energy and power, then we have no chance of solving tomorrow’s – which is what thorium is possibly about.
Have we not got enough dreamland energy policy about based on wind, solar and the wretched environmentally danaging biofuels (well, most of them)?
Some basics: with the diminishing correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures (even GISS seems to be below IPCC scenario c to me – the climate experts will know more precisely) the risk associated with CO2 has to be seen as lower than anticipated by policy makers. This is consistent with the failed predictions of global warming catastrophes from 1988 onwards – they have all proved wrong, so why should anyone trust the next set of alarms – CO2 means more cold and snow!
So, lets manage energy policy against this new perspective of risk for now, and exploit the shale gas opportunity instead of pointless wind etc. Then if the risks remain low, move on to coal again. And in the meantime keep the nuclear option alive, but recognise the high capital costs and the level of risk. We can adapt policies if Governments are not foolish enough as to lock them into legislation.
Can scientists and academics please stop chasing these magic bullets, and start listening to people in the energy sector once more (and I am not a lobbyist for any corporate – so no accusations on that please). Mind you – policy makers outside North America and parts of Europe are already moving this way. They are recognising the change in the risk profile and the need to deliver the energy required and are responding accordingly.
The one big problem with conventional power stations is that they are inefficient, generally below 50% efficiency. The idea of having trailer sized thorium reactors or any other form of local generation based on heat has two key inherent efficiency benefits, reduced transmission losses and the possibility of using waste heat in buildings and production operations. Combined heat and power (CHP) from local generation is a sensible way forward and if thorium reactors can function in this capacity it would be a real efficiency benefit.
Several years ago I was part of a foundation tasked with looking at clean energy futures in the UK. One of the options was looking at improving the efficiency of power generation and efficiency of conventional nuclear power. After about a year of work and economic analysis, one viable scheme (amongst several) based on existing nuclear technology and integrated generation and production was presented to government. One hour was allotted to the presentation and it was dismissed by government within that hour. The discussion ended with the simple statement “That it did not match government policy”. So my concern on something like localized thorium reactors would be that a great technology and many development opportunities can be lost because the mind shift required by the regulators has not occurred. With many governments still totally focused on managing CO2 and obtaining tax revenue from it, there is a real risk that sensible generation options will be dismissed because of policy determinations that are based on income and not environmentally sound decision making. It is possible that an energy crisis will be required or a financially very attractive generation option developed before that mind shift will occur. It would be intriguing to see what kind of taxation governments would levy on something like a thorium generation facility as the motive appears to be financial and not cleaner and efficient production.
“”””” John Brookes says:
February 16, 2011 at 4:24 am
Any less CO2 intensive form of energy generation deserves investigation. This one can go into the mix with all the others. Like any other sort of energy generation, you need to count the full costs – after all, the problem with fossil fuels is that the environmental cost of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has not been factored in. “””””
So what if it is zero ?
So long as the “environmental cost” mythology persists; the big spenders will continue to push carbon taxes; anything to fund their vote buying largesse; such as the $4,000 (average) per employee “bonus” being paid out by taxpayers to the employees of unprofitable Government Motors, to buy their Union Votes for Obama’s re-electrion; or the $7,500 taxpayer gift to people willing to put up with the problems of electric cars, to get them to buy one. Are you talking aboutt hose sorts of “environemtal costs”; they are fossil fuel intensive costs.
I work in a coal plant now. I wouldn’t have a problem working in a nuclear plant. Look at the statistics, you are safer in a nuke plant than your own bathtub (not to mention your vehicle. Compare the number of deaths involved in mining coal to the deaths from nuclear power.
I obviously have no problem with clean coal either.
Thorium can be weaponized as stated above, we would just impose the same security as handling uranium.
“”””” Spence_UK says:
February 16, 2011 at 6:30 am
Advice: choose your friends carefully. This “friend” said the following: “””””
So Spence, as I read your post, it seems like a deja vu all over again fairy story; you know the one about the “Stone Soup”; where the vagabond helps the lady of the house to make an excellent pot of soup using nothing but an ordinary river boulder, that he keeps wrapped up in a cloth in his swag. Simply by boiling the pebble in a pot of water, the vagrant makes a wonderful soup, which he allows the Hausfrau to “season to taste”, with some salt and pepper; maybe an onion, or somecarrots; potatoes can add a nice bouquet too, and it never hurts to toss a little strip steak in or some bacon chunks; just to get the flavor right.
And after the soup is made, the stone is completely recycleable and available for the next time the bum wants to show some other lady how he makes stone soup.
So you’re telling us that this Thorium river rock, is the greatest thing since sliced bread; and after you deal with the Uranium 233 scum that forms, and a few other bitternesses like gamma rays, and the like; in the end, you can have your own backyard mini-nuke; with nary a problem in the world.
Thanks for your insight Spence; how different is the view, when you can pullback the curtain and see the villain flipping all the switches !
Blah. The only reason why this is considered economically feasible now is because the government is choking off exploration and development.
Show me a peak issue (peak coal, peak oil, peak food, peak doctors, peak whatever), and I’ll almost certainly be able to show you the government regulations that triggered or exacerbated it.
I’m all for future energy sources, but I’m not more for it than current energy. If we don’t keep drilling for oil and natural gas, digging for coal and maintaining and building the refineries needed to process oil into gasoline, we won’t survive as a culture to see these future plans come to fruition.
Tom Scharf says:
February 16, 2011 at 4:29 am
This is a funny comment coming from a climate scientist. He is discussing comment threads on thorium reactors:
…There’s also an unhelpful dose of ego and machismo in some of the technical discussions online, as in “I’m right because my resume is longer than yours,” that can drive potentially informative dissenters into silence…
I wonder if he sees any irony there.
___________________________________________
Nice catch. “Informative dissenters” doesn’t exist in the AGWers mind. Only in different areas of expertise. Since establishing the believer’s consensus-propaganda-machine, the IPCC, “Informative dissenters” are simply put in the category with other “deniers” and have therefore seized to exist.
How can a world full of otherwise sane people watch this process and simply conform?
I’m TOTALLY against ‘meeting up in the middle ground’. That is a political or commercial bargaining proposal. And I do not think we should be doing politics or business.
What I think we are fighting for is the continued existence and proper operation of Science. Make no mistake, this episode has severely damaged the scientific process – for instance, almost all the world’s scientific establishment organisations have prostituted their calling and indulged in a level of anti-scientific propaganda last seen in the time of Galileo. The medical establishment has moved the same way. We need to draw a line in the sand for absolute truth.
If AGW is proven then I will be supporting sensible moves to mitigate it. If it is NOT proven, then I will NOT be supporting middle-of-the-road proposals to do something to allay the fears of people who believe it to be true due to activist propaganda.
Science operates by trying to discover the truth, not by pandering to a vocal minority, or even a democratic majority. This is a fact which needs to be stressed constantly…
Between the extremes of Hansen’s pronouncements about coal death trains…
There seems to be a positive correlation between being a climatologist & being mentally ill! What’s WITH these guys??
“Climatologist Disorder” = Defining symptoms and characteristics include a tendency to become obsessed with end-of-earth scenarios, experience strong paranoid delusions, have feelings of grandiosity, become oppositional/defiant when presented with FOI requests, etc.
Somebody better get Hansen & his ilk some medication! Considering the power & influence these guys have (used to have), they could cause some real problems.
We don’t need a middle ground to agree upon when that middle ground includes the religious views that 1) CO2 is evil; 2) energy efficiency that produces affluence, thus population growth, or any growth at all, is evil; and 3) thorium is morally good because it is not uranium.
We need science and the skepticism that is fundamental to a scientific perspective. Pollution, scientifically not religiously determined, remains an important issue. Thorium must be investigated for its polluting and dangerous qualities as must all energy sources. (Spence_UK 6:30 am). There are trade offs with every single one. We should be developing clean coal, natural gas, and oil resources as thoroughly as possible because we have had long experience with them and we know that they are connected to aspects of organic life.
Furthermore, responsible development of all energy resources, full speed ahead, is the way to energy independence well before 2020. Waiting until 2020 is putting a noose around our necks. If we had had responsible politicians for the last 11 years, we would have arrived at that independence well before today — both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the decline. Today the Democrats are trying to stop the full range of energy development and move us further into socialism — a religious economic-political doctrine.
Nuclear may be the future, but we still have to store the waste (where is France’s waste going?) and build in the safety. Full speed ahead on all matters, but let’s not “partner” with those who would limit or destroy our current successes. Thorium must prove its mettle, its profitability, and its safety. Or, I emphasize OR, we will be stuck with another religious absolutist decision just like that of the CFL light bulbs — and we will be going along with it.
David Archibald does not have it right. He understands only a small part: that we need energy independence and that we should be developing thorium as an energy resource.
You can also hold Plutonium in your hand – only, you don’t want any dust of it…
mark bell says:
February 16, 2011 at 6:51 am
What does France do with it’s nuclear waste?
Except in the USA (and maybe elsewhere?), reactor fuel is reprocessed.
From the link below:
“. . . 1977 change in government policy which ruled out all US civilian reprocessing as one facet of US non-proliferation policy.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
This if a fairly long document but the first sections are an easy read.
There is no magic pill…or, the desired features have already been available (read up on the CANDU reactor that uses natural uranium, cannot melt down, etc., invented by the Canadians because they did not have access to Manhattan project technology).
For decades, there used to be a mounted BOMARC missile at the north end of Boeing Field in Seattle. In later years, it had been dismounted and was slated for display at the Museum of Flight. Then one day, I noticed that the dismounted bird was no longer in evidence. Upon inquiry, I was told it was disposed of as “radioactive waste” because of the trace thorium used in the magnesium alloy of the fuselage. So, the idea that pure thorium would be regarded as No Big Deal strikes me as… optimistic.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not opposed to thorium. But all nuclear reactors share the same physics and produce the same products. I am opposed to unreasoning fear of uranium, however. There is nothing preventing us from moving forward with an expansion of nuclear power except for the political desire to control our society through the shortage and rationing of energy.
JohnM, The power companies do not care what the price is, so long as they can sell it for a profit. All companies, even power companies do everything in their power to find ways to make their products cheaper. They do this so they can sell more, keep ahead of the competition, and make more money.
Charles Higley says:
February 16, 2011 at 6:58 am
“At greater than 7000 feet, it is hard to argue that these are from a real fossil source . . .”
The above part of your comment might need to be more clearly expressed. In places such as the Gulf of Mexico the sediments max out at a depth of about 15 Kms (50,000 ft) and while the oil there isn’t exactly of the same fossil source as coal, it is nonetheless well understood (and it is not from subduction). Most oil that has been recovered has been from “fossil” sources and most drilling is into sedimentary layers. If large sources of oil are to be found in subduction zones, wildcatters will soon be swarming over those regions. We haven’t seen that yet.
http://www.gulfbase.org/facts.php
The middle ground?
That is easy of course, the provision of reliable plentiful cheap energy for all to access, without that foundation nothing else is possible and the acceptance that carbon dioxide is a benign and wholly beneficial trace gas.
Greenshirt political agitators should be forced to back up their wild claims and be made fiscally responsible for the consequences of spreading lies and false scares to the public and they should be legally obliged to obey the law and be banned from indulging in criminal sabotage and inciting others to carry it out.
Scientists should be forced to sign a behaviour and standards contract before they receive a penny of taxpayers money and face a series of professional sanctions if they are found to have been guilty of premeditated or wilful misconduct.
Governments should never again be able to peddle a political agenda and justifying socio political changes by buying off science and scientists and scientific institutions. Governments should be held accountable for the monies they disperse to scientific research and the reasons for that dispersal.
This would be the middle ground meeting point for a normal and rational dialogue between differing opinions, a level fair playing field to enable free discourse and trust. Trust is the key, trust is the essential ingredient, in essence it means that I trust that others do not have ulterior motives and that they cannot gain the upper hand by using of benefiting from underhanded unfair and secret methodologies.
Only when we can come together as free equals in honest respectful honest dialogue can we hope to bridge the current divide.
Dr T G Watkins says:
February 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
. . .
“May I recommend an essay by William Tucker titled E = MC2 . . . ”
Look here:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469