If Obama is going to kill coal, he has to hide the body

I guess we can forget the 54.5 MPG fleet average CAFE standard now since FUEL EFFICIENCY is no longer part of the all of the above mix.

The back door destruction of the US energy base will not cut global carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide emissions from China, India and the rest of the world will exceed our reductions.

If POTUS Obama doesn’t want the US to use coal, for sure China will take it of their hands if the price is cheap enough.
As China has planned for the consumption of one gigaton of coal in energy production per annum, any little bit will be a help.
But China has recently discovered a massive new coal field, and with the coal from Mongolia, Russia and Chinese coal mining, the price would have to be competitive with the Chinese labour.
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=142229&sn=Detail
And also Google – Winsway to see the infrastructure for coal handling and transport across the Sino-Russian border.

onlyme-
Ya, that CAFE standard is working out terribly. The 8 speed transmissions, lighter materials and better engines are going to improve fuel efficiency the 2013 Ram trucks and the coming 2014 Chevy’s by at least 20% in efficiency. Great vehicles, I might get one:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/04/2013-ram-1500-powertrain-deep-dive.html
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/04/2013-ram-1500-frame-suspension-deep-dive.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/sns-2013-ram-1500-safety-uconnect-deep-dive-20120412,0,4560496.story?page=1

I was listening to a programme on BBC Radio 4 (Costing the Earth) on Wednesday night. It raises the spectre of Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Whatever whenever possible. This week it concentrated on Coal/Carbon Capture.
One expert was quite blase about carbon capture adding £150-£200/ $300 annually (more if electricity is used for heating replacing gas because electricity then greener) annually to electricity bills, apparently the “middle classes” wouldn’t notice and the government (middle classes again but not mentioned) could help those in fuel poverty.
Despite referring to coal as old Sooty it was admitted that Europe would have had very serious problems in electricity supply last winter without it (even France was importing power!)

Elections are coming, so you guys know what to do.

The solution is simple as dirt (ahem…): If we put our minds together, we might come up with a Rube Goldberg procedure that is even more costly, ineffective, unworkable, counterproductive and requires gargantuan bureaucratic overheads, not to mention violating several scores of natural laws and every ounce of amassed economic experience. If you hand that to them, no one will ever mention Clean Coal again.

Baa Humbug says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:46 am
The US, nay, the World, will get another 4 years of this dangerously incompetent man.
We so desperately need a strong willed person who can purge our institutions of the huggy kissy econut infestation. Perhaps a Ronald Reagan mark 2.
=====================
Ronald Reagan mark 2 may happen. Take a very close look at Virgil Goode. virgilgoode2012@gmail.com

Determined to destroy the last vestiges of the US economy ,it’s completely insane.

I guess this is a good example of the difference between what someone will *say* to get votes versus what someone will *do* when running a country.
P.S.
How come realclimate is not under the Tools section?

Alec Rawls writes:

To rid coal-burning emissions of this eco-villain the going cost is $761 per ton of sequestered carbon: “staggeringly, wildly, mind-blowingly higher than any other conceivable measure designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Mr Rawls (and others) might want to check the linked article behind the “$761 per ton” statement. The numbers in the linked article do not make any sense. It states a one time investment of $1.6 billion (not a monthly or yearly cost, but a one time amount). Next it states that the CCS equipment bought with this one time investment sequesters 2.1 million tons of CO2, but does not specifically states if this amount is annually. The text further down the article leads me to believe this is the annual amount of CO2 sequestration.
Then the article simply divides $1.6 Billion by 2.1 million tons to come up with a cost of $761 per ton.
?????????
Either the writer of the article needs to go back to school, or I need reading comprehension lessons….
Don’t get me wrong, CCS is ridiculously expensive. I have professional experience with CCS technology (by way of a possible CCS pilot plant on a coal filred power station), and it is a disaster of a technology. Besides the huge CAPEX it will require enormous OPEX and it will drag down the efficiency of a powerplant by 15-20% at least, meaning one has to burn 15-20% more fossil fuels to generate the same amount of power.
But mr. Rawls, please do not diminish the impact/quality of your article by referencing nonsense like the Globe and Mail column!
I would suggest you delete the reference to it.
All the best,
Wijnand
The Netherlands

bsk says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:38 am
That’s nothing. Overseas, MPG is significantly better. If we were to match theirs overnight, gov’t would lose a lot of tax revenues because it’s based on per gallon tax. And big oil business will lose a lot of money too.

This is only to do with the upcoming election, nothing else, after which he (if elected) – just like a president from any political party – will continue to do what he’s been doing since 2009: business as usual. Not that sceptics should be complacent regarding the apparent message, but this is simply spin.

And while they’re at it let’s put even more people on the soup line. When did the lunatics start running things?:
**************************************************************************
“Last year at this time, we were looking for 2,000 coal miners to go to work. Now there’s 2,000 laid off,” Maloney said. “We’ve got six coal-fired power plants that are being shut. We’re losing our competitive edge, and it’s wrong.”
As one measure of the disdain in West Virginia for the Obama administration’s crackdown on coal, a federal prisoner doing 17 years for extortion got 41 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primary to President Obama’s 59 percent.
Administration supporters are banking on cheap, clean and abundant natural gas as a substitute for coal-fired power, but critics say there are problems with its transportation and storage — problems which have lead to price hikes in the past.
Craig Jennings, president of the Preston County, W.Va., Commission, says his constituents are bracing for big spikes in their electricity bills.
“They’re telling us that you’re going to see at least a 30 percent increase in your electric bill now,” he said. “For an older person on a fixed income in an older home who’s used to paying $300 a month for an electric bill they’re going to be pushing $400 a month now on that same electric bill.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/10/coal-industry-warns-proposed-epa-rule-could-force-fourth-plants-to-close/#ixzz1uZ1UJrEB

What is interesting is that WUWT is the only ‘news’ carrier not infected with the green deceit. I now read WUWT for political news as well as things on scientific interest. Thank You Anthony we are very lucky to have your creation WUWT.

Just remember that half the coal currentlyproduced in the World is burnt in china and that proportion is increasing.year by year. without a block on that all other reduction exercises are futile.

I notice they omitted “Clean Dung” as well.

CT looking really suspicious havent moved for 12 days now!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
DMI back to normal and possibly crossed the verboten line!
DMI ice extent

Of course what the CO2 alarmists call “dirty coal” is perfectly clean.
Um.
They’ve largely solved the SOx and NOx emissions problems that lead to acid rain, but not at all plants by far. They’ve largely eliminated the fly ash emissions at most plants, but not all. Lots of plants still emit carbon particles into the surrounding areas. The bodies of people living near coal plants have higher levels of radionuclides in them than those living around nuclear power plants. The ash waste is stored in landfills or lagoons that leach arsenic and radionuclides into the soil and water.
When it comes to combusting coal and oil, CO2 is the least of your worries. These are dirty processes. Measures have been taken over the decades that have greatly reduced pollution from these power sources, but to say that burning coal is “perfectly clean” is simply delusional.

The obvious winner is Big Oil (fracking for natural gas included), who else? Burning coal produces twice as much carbon dioxide for the same energy output than hydrocarbons do. That’s because hydrocarbons also contain Hydrogen which burns to water, a simple fact of physics & chemistry.
Now, the coal market is much more fragmented than that of hydrocarbons, so the only way to introduce monopolistic prices is through regulation. On the other hand, for hydrocarbons simple background cartels will do the job perfectly, but only if no close substitute is available.
Therefore, as soon as coal is regulated out of the market, there will be no practical limit to hydrocarbon price increases, that is, Big Oil can make huge extra profits with no additional investment whatsoever. To serve this purpose the peak hydrocarbon hype will surely come back in full force.
Based on cui prodest or follow the money things we can conclude that current hijacking of the environmental movement by anti-CO₂ agents is financed by no one else, but hydrocarbon interests. That’s the dirty secret warmistas are so reluctant to reveal.

Hey! Obama is just fulfilling a campaign promise!
He said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry- remember?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-aLcbr63ME&w=640&h=360]

bsk says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:28 am
Your post ignores that Obama, both as a Senator and as President, was a huge supporter of coal and clean coal in particular so the coal in southern IL (his home state) could be exploited.
_______________________________
Obama is not against MINING of coal he is only against evil American Capitalists using the coal.
Plans are already under way to ship all that coal from the USA to China, just as Canada will be shipping their oil to China and Australia ships their coal and raw materials to China.
China is wining the war of world dominance with out firing a shot.
REFERENCES:
YALE: As Coal Use Declines in U.S., Coal Companies Focus on China
China beats out America for Canadian oil
New York Times: At ports in Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Colombia and South Africa, ships are lining up to load coal for furnaces in China… The United States now ships coal to China via Canada, but coal companies are scouting for new loading ports in Washington State
China and Patents:
China Takes Lead in Race for Clean Nuclear Power
When Innovation, Too, Is Made in China: AS a national strategy, China is trying to build an economy that relies on innovation.. document “National Patent Development Strategy (2011-2020).”
National Patent Development Strategy (2011-2020) translation
Who’s that knocking at ORNL’s front door? Yep, it’s China (again and again) Chinese scientist visit Oak Ridge more than three times as often as the nearest “competitor” India.
Security Watch: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Hacked… Once again, there is reason to believe the attack comes from China.
Stealing Technology
Top Federal Lab [Oak Ridge] Hacked in Spear-Phishing Attack

China-Based Hacking of 760 Companies Shows Cyber Cold War
…The networks of at least 760 companies, research universities, Internet service providers and government agencies were hit over the last decade by the same elite group of China-based cyber spies….
Stealing Everything’
“They are stealing everything that isn’t bolted down, and it’s getting exponentially worse,” said Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
China has made industrial espionage an integral part of its economic policy, stealing company secrets to help it leapfrog over U.S. and other foreign competitors to further its goal of becoming the world’s largest economy, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a report released last month.

I will let the rest of you do the dot connecting.
You might find these older articles “enlightening” too.
The Federal Election Commission… imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fund-raising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources.
Campaign Finance Special Report: list of links to Clinton/Gore/China finance connection investigations
CNN MONEY: Clinton pushes open trade: President uses WEF address to tout open trade policies, China’s inclusion in WTO
Manufacturing & Technology News: China’s Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised: …Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong, according to an analysis done by Robert Lighthizer, former deputy United States Trade Representative…

The Economist: Chinese politics and the WTO, No change, Hopes of sparking political change have come to nothing so far
The Clinton Presidency: A Foreign Policy for the Global Age
As the first president who has understood the connections of the global economy and its connection to our prosperity, President Clinton has led the United States toward its greatest expansion in world trade in history…. Completed the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations and created the WTO to reduce tariffs, settle trade disputes and enforce rules… Completed the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations and created the WTO to reduce tariffs, settle trade disputes and enforce rules.

Lord I really hate politicians.

John says:
May 11, 2012 at 12:47 am
Elections are coming, so you guys know what to do.
___________________________
It is really tough to win an election when all the dead voters are Econuts too and both candidates are bought and paid for anyway.

In California, the fuel economy of motor vehicles isn’t driven by the automotive industry but by the fuel itself and the legislative demands for cleaner burning fuels. I recently took a trip to Washington State from California. I filled up when I left home. 210 miles later I filled up again and added 10 gallons Califormia Formula. 227 miles later I filled up again and another 11 gallons was added this time in Oregon. 317 miles later I filled up again 10.1 gallons on the Oregon gas…………….. California gas got 21 mpg in my 2008 Charger and Oregon gas got 31 mpg,
around a 50% increase in fuel economy

bsk on May 11, 2012 at 12:28 am said
“Your post ignores that Obama, both as a Senator and as President, was a huge supporter of coal and clean coal in particular so the coal in southern IL (his home state) could be exploited.”
My apologies, bsk, but Illinois is not Obama’s ‘home state’. It’s his ‘adopted’ state. His home state is Hawaii or some such. The question stands as to why the chosen one made Illinois his chosen one. Illinois: unarguably one of the most, if not the most, corrupt states in the Union. A state that’s sent 4 governors to prison. And he didn’t just choose Illinois, he chose Chicago, the epicenter of Illinois corruption. Why? He got his state senate seat from his own political mentor, Alice Palmer. He threw her under the bus, taking her to court on voter fraud, and got her seat unopposed

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 7:08 am

Alec says “Of course what the CO2 alarmists call “dirty coal” is perfectly clean. The only difference is that it produces CO2—that most healthful gas, the beginning of the food chain for all life on earth—which remains alarmingly close to the minimum levels needed to sustain life.”

So if this is a science site, why is there not a rounding rebuke to such a silly statement as the above?

Because people like you are not capable of delivering one? Remember, Tom: Theoretically, you’re a commenter too, not only a troll.

@Bryan A – a 50% change in fuel economy is simply not possible due to fuel formation alone as the formulations are not wildly different. Something else had to have also changed.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/faq.htm

eyesonu says: @ May 11, 2012 at 3:53 am
Ronald Reagan mark 2 may happen. Take a very close look at Virgil Goode….
____________________
I am afraid that all Ron Paul or Virgil Goode will do is split off the independent vote and insure Obama’s victory. A very dangerous situation because he will have nothing to lose if he ticks off the voters. We only get to vote for the hand picked puppets shoved at us. That has been clear for years.
It is amazing how Democrats see Clinton as a “Saint” and Republicans see Reagan as a “Saint” when both helped get us into the current economic mess. Reagan’s policies allowing leveraged buyouts also helped bring the USA to her knees.
(Mods, I am including quotes so I do not have to rebut _Jim’s snark later)
The Takeovers & Leveraged Buyout “gold rush” started with former US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon in 1982 Reagan through his laissez faire attitude did nothing to stop it.

…The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration’s relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called “junk bond” innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals….
Corporate takeovers became a prominent feature of the American business landscape during the seventies and eighties… public tender offer – …allows bidders to seek control directly from shareholders—by going “over the heads” of target management—the tender offer is the most powerful weapon available to the hostile bidder….
Hostile tender offers have been around for decades, but they were rare and generally involved small target firms until the midseventies. Then came the highly controversial multibillion-dollar hostile takeovers of very recognizable public companies. By the late eighties there were dozens of multi-billion-dollar takeovers and their cousins, leveraged buyouts (LBOs).
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TakeoversandLeveragedBuyouts.html

Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980’s were hostile. The 1980’s also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.’s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988…
THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers…. In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America….
THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another’s.
Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages.
January 29, 1989 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/magazine/leveraged-buyouts-american-pays-the-price.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times

In the 1980s during the great takeover boom and hollowing out of the industrial heartland, many states adopted amendments to their corporate codes that codified directors’ fiduciary duties, so-called “constituency statutes”. In general, these provisions made it clear that a director need not “maximize shareholder value.” Rather, in complying with their fiduciary obligations, directors may take all sorts of things into consideration – the impact of their decisions on various constituencies, including employees, the community, the environment, the color of the sky, whatever…
When these statutes were first passed, they were heralded as way to protect jobs, etc….
My problem with these statutes is that they strike me as a bit of a head fake. While they certainly give boards the power they need to protect local communities, etc should they so desire, they don’t actually require directors to protect those constituencies. In effect, such statutes, simply give directors another fiduciary lever to pull when negotiating with a potential acquirer.
I’ve said this before, but you know a board might be very concerned about the impact of a potential acquisition on employees and the community when the bid is $69. At $75, the board’s concerns about the impact on the community might start to fall away. Why not move the HQ to Paris? It’s so much nicer there than Cambridge. At $85? Employees … we have employees?!
There’s no requirement that a board share the incremental price increase with those stakeholders who will lose out when a transaction is ultimately done….. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mergers/state_takeover_laws/

RESULTS
Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
Industries with over 50% foreign ownership, is listed by Source Watch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_ownership_of_U.S._corporations
Even out ports, roads and bridges are bing sold off. The Department of Homeland Security says 80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying US bridges and toll roads. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-22-ports-flap_x.htm and http://carnegieendowment.org/2006/04/03/congressman-kolbe-speaks-on-dubai-ports-world/3blj and http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-highways_x.htm
Most recently it is our farmland http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html
As I said I loathe politicians.

Robert Clemenzi says:
May 11, 2012 at 6:17 am
What about hydroelectric? Low carbon footprint and all that.
Shouldn’t that icon also be there?
____________________________
NO, it hurts the little fishies. (EPA again) The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve.. rivers so the Econuts already have that covered. Hydroelectric is EVIL because as I said it could hurt the little fishies. Beaver dams are OK though.

A billion dollars for 1/10,000 of a degree?
I did some number crunching on this issue since in Alberta, Canada, they still want to spend about a billion dollars on one carbon capture project. At the present time, humans emit about 90 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every DAY. I DO NOT believe this to be the case, however let us assume there will be the IPCC average number of 3.000 degrees C increase in temperature due to our emissions if we do nothing. So if a billion dollars is spent to capture 1 million tons a YEAR, this amounts to a fraction of 1 in 32,850. So if nothing is done, let us assume the temperature will presumably go up 3.0000 degrees C, but if a billion dollars is spent, the temperature would go up by 2.9999 degrees. Or to put in another way, if we take the temperature of 10,000 cities now and then again in 100 years from now, 9,999 cities will have the same temperature and one city will be 1 degree C colder if a billion dollars is spent.
P.S. At one time, we had four different projects on the go. During the last election, the Wildrose party was willing to scrap all four and pay the penalty required. But they lost and are now the opposition party. The ruling party won and they do not seem to be for carbon capture either but seem obligated to honor previous commitments. At present, the Project Pioneer did pull out but the other three are still on the go. One of the others asked for public input and I submitted the above along with the stagnation in temperature for RSS over the last 15+ years.

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 7:08 am
Alec says “Of course what the CO2 alarmists call “dirty coal” is perfectly clean. The only difference is that it produces CO2—that most healthful gas, the beginning of the food chain for all life on earth—which remains alarmingly close to the minimum levels needed to sustain life.”
….
So if this is a science site, why is there not a rounding rebuke to such a silly statement as the above? Shouldn’t independent and truth seeking thinking correct such an inherently wrong statement?
_________________________
Yes and as you will notice Juice nailed it at May 11, 2012 at 6:25 am
I will add the major safety hazards of mining coal. I had a friend with an MS in Geology who quit because of the company’s disregard for physical safety procedures but that was in the late 1970’s.
I will add that black lung disease, is still a problem despite the US government eradication program of 1969. http://www.umwa.org/?q=content/black-lung
More people die from coal than die from nuclear which is why I am pro-thorium. In looking at the death rates per watt produced for nuclear, oil and coal, nuclear wins hands down. …for every person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die due to coal, adjusted for the same amount of power produced….

@ Alec – with all due respect, that makes utterly no sense.
Alec said “Does Tom, who also takes exception to this sentence, dispute that CO2 is clean?”
What does clean mean? Naturally occurring? If one takes that definition then wholesale burning of coal on the scale we are doing is clearly not naturally occurring. So that must be rejected….
Does “clean” mean then perhaps “natural” in the environment? Well by that logic since our atmosphere naturally contains krypton so therefore and unlimited amount of additional neon is a good thing? Wait one moment, too much krypton will kill you so clearly that logic does not hold.
So natural must mean then that it is required for life, therefore more is inherently better. Ah yes, that is why we submerge our crops in water since they all grow with an unlimited amount of water. My goodness, that sounds silly, so that cannot be the logic at work here.
So what is the logic and science behind the statement Alec?

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 8:29 am

@ DirkH said “Because people like you are not capable of delivering one? Remember, Tom: Theoretically, you’re a commenter too, not only a troll.”
Quite interesting. So on a science site no one besides Juice know that burning coal emits SO2, N2O, Mercury and others and that coal ash typically arsenic, selenium, and cadmium

So you’re actually trying to formulate an argument. Great, you’re making progress. With regard to the pollutants you mention, you probably have not heard of that invention called flue gas scrubbers, but I can help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_scrubber
My city of 250,000 in Germany, Braunschweig, has a coal- and gas fired plant right besides central residential areas. And I’m glad it has, 300 MW that can keep the city going when the wind/ solar power instabilities wreck the national grid. No, no pollution here I am worried about.

Alec – quite strange. Avoiding the topic at hand. I am sure that was an oversight.
Are you saying that burning coal does NOT produce SO2, N2O, Mercury and others and coal ash typically arsenic, selenium, and cadmium?
Kindly answer that question and then we shall move on to your claim that more CO2 is inherently better and why better neglects any considerations for the rest of the life on the planet.

@dirkH:
Have to agree with Tom. Coal fired powerplants are definitely dirtier than gas fired combined cycle plants, with respect to emissions of heavy metals, particulates, NOx, SOx, etc., even with particulate filters, SOx scrubbers, deNOx-scrubbers (catalitic reductors) installed.
And @ Alec Rawls: I would suggest you remove the link to the $761 per ton article, because the numbers are incorrect. Please see my earlier post at 4:51am.
Regards,
Wijnand

Philip Bradley said May 11, 2012 at 1:14 am
quote
The ‘dirty coal’ meme was all about implanting in the public mind that so called carbon pollution is the same as the soot and other pollutants that come from burning coal in home hearths and stoves, which only a few million Chinese peasants still do.
unquote
Oi, watch it! I’ve used about a ton and a half of coal this winter to keep warm. Admittedly it’s burned in a cast iron Rayburn, but still. I’m not a Chinese peasant. I’m an East Anglian peasant.
JF
(I’ve heard something about a proposal that country dwellers will be forbidden to use gas-fired central heating in future: this means I will just stick with burning coal which is much more carbon intensive than gas. Well, one can’t expect much in the way of intellectual coherence from these people — they are, for example, thinking of raising speed limtis to 80 mph while making us reduce our fuel consumption by increasing fuel prices. Ho. Bloody. Hum.)

Der Speigel had a story on CO2 sequestering today. For purposes of completeness, here it is: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/promising-carbon-capture-facility-launched-in-norway-despite-doubts-a-832284.html

Alec says – “”Alarmists try to claim that it is not salutary because it is going to cause harmful global warming, but there is ZERO evidence for that. In the history of mankind, warming has always been salutary, cooling harmful.”
Surely you are not saying that CO2 causes warming, now are you? If CO2 is unrelated why string the words together like that.

@smokey,
No problem.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
See the graphic Class I Gross Freight Revenue by Commodity: 2003
Hauling coal represents the largest revenue source for US railroads (21% of total).
I’d think the railroad unions would be a bit miffed at Mr. Obama’s proposals….

“Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 7:49 am
@Bryan A – a 50% change in fuel economy is simply not possible due to fuel formation alone as the formulations are not wildly different. Something else had to have also changed.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/faq.htm ”
All the driving was done on US interstate 5 with Cruise Control set at 65MPH except for occasional construction zones, the only difference was the fuel used since I drove the entire way.

@ Bryan A – Hi there. I am not saying that you did not see a mileage difference, what I am saying is that the energy differential in the fuels is not enough to explain a 50% mileage differential. In any case hope it was a good drive.

Thank you for an excellent article. The green zealots are costing us a bundle. In Kentucky, home of Cap and Trade supporter, Congressman Ben Chandler, Kentucky Utilities has applied for $2.5 billion in price increases due to upgrade requirements. This is for starters. They are anticipating having to close 2 coal-fired power plants, replacing the electricity with ?????.
http://www.seebenspend.com/shutting%20down%20america.html
http://www.seebenspend.com/coal.html
http://www.seebenspend.com/coalmine%20new.html Pictures of a surface mine 30 years later.

Bryan A says:
May 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm
“If the claims can be proven, it sounds like a promising alternative”
Why ask for proof when a consensus will will suffice?

@ Alec – did we loose you?
OK then, so we have agreement that CO2 causes warming. So now the question is how much warming we want to have it cause, how quickly that happens, and what side effects come along with it.
That is quite an interesting conversation to have. First, however, I would like to check with our fellow commentators that we have agreement on that “Hey Tom: CO2 does cause warming….”
Are we all agreed to proceed?

@Alec – given that there are frequent claims here that CO2 does not cause warming, and any who say it does is subject to personal attacks/smears you are being quite brave.
But wait – you are not being personally attacked. How odd, it is as if there was a double standard in effect here. That cannot be because protectors of science like Smokey would clearly not let that stand…
In any case what you are arguing for is to use CO2 warming properties to engage in planetary wide Geo Engineering. I thought that was considered bat-sh!t crazy?
Did you crack some law of the universe that provides you unique insight as to the exact level of CO2 to use to do this in combination with the other GHGs?
Any chance you scribbled that formula down?

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm
@Alec – given that there are frequent claims here that CO2 does not cause warming, and any who say it does is subject to personal attacks/smears you are being quite brave.
But wait – you are not being personally attacked. How odd, it is as if there was a double standard in effect here. That cannot be because protectors of science like Smokey would clearly not let that stand…
In any case what you are arguing for is to use CO2 warming properties to engage in planetary wide Geo Engineering. I thought that was considered bat-sh!t crazy?
Did you crack some law of the universe that provides you unique insight as to the exact level of CO2 to use to do this in combination with the other GHGs?
Any chance you scribbled that formula down?

Works like this: even if the inane CO2→warming theory were correct, it would be better to increase it in order to prevent the highly probable global cooling disaster coming down the pike. If it’s not correct, increasing CO2 to boost agricultural output and plant robustness and water-use efficiency is by far the best policy.
So there is no point whatsoever in reducing CO2 output and levels — unless the hypothetical contra-factual water vapour/cloud positive feedbacks are suddenly discovered to be correct after all. Which is a very, very poor bet.

@ Alec – shall we put aside the “it is the sun” argument for a moment? There is so much to learn here before you take me to school on that.
You are asserting that CO2 causes warming, and warming is good, therefore we should purposely continue releasing massive amounts of it. That is planetary wide Geo-Engineering.
May we agree that is what your are indeed arguing for?
If not – exactly how are you not arguing for planetary wide Geo-Engineering?
Once that is understood we will address exactly how you are going to fine-grain manage the Geo-Engineering process, since clearly it would be massively irresponsible to just have a go at it without being able to precisely control the outcome, yes?

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“Once that is understood we will address exactly how you are going to fine-grain manage the Geo-Engineering process, since clearly it would be massively irresponsible to just have a go at it without being able to precisely control the outcome, yes?”
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm
So don’t pee your pants.

@ Bryan H – so Alec is inane then for stating that we all know that CO2 causes warming?

Bryan A says:
May 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm
A proof of design reactor was run at Oak Ridge for four years in the 1950’s It was successful enough that the Chinese visited Oak Ridge over 1500 times and hacked into the computer system. They hope to beat the USA to the patent. (I posted all the links some where on WUWT earlier today.)

DirkH and Bryan A, for information on thorium try
Thorium – World Nuclear Association

@ Alec – I was so hoping you could educate us exactly how your amazing – and proprietary as of this point – unified law of ideal CO2 levels that take into perfect account all the climate drivers formula works.
Given that you are lobbying for planetary wide Geo-Engineering to increase warming via CO2 as good thing to do, surely you must have figured out precisely how all the extra CO2 exactly interacts with the other GHG in the atmosphere. And given your claim that the sun is actually responsible for the warming, and that GHG can linger for a very long time indeed, that you have figured exactly how the sun will behave several hundreds of years into the formula?

@jim – is there something wrong in asking on topic questions of people making assertions.
For example, you take issue with npt putting limits on things but isn’t that what Alec and Gail and Smokey are arguing for?
Did not Alec say CO2 is healthy without qualification.

Bryan A, my apologies, I see you were quoting someone else, so it is their confusion between power and energy, not yours.

Alec said “Trying to reduce CO2 is also “geo-engineering.”
That is rubbish, that is like saying that stopping polluting is also polluting.

@ Jim – how is it wasting time exploring the assertions the people make? I mean, if the assertion has merit what harm is there in exploring it?
For example, Jim says “Should we burn all coal this way or run some of it through our energy extracting systems. Our coal burning operations also run “cleaner” than natural coal seam fires”
That suggests that the CO2 released from the coal seam fires is greater than our impact from the dawn of the industrial revolution. Is that indeed the case? And doesn’t that assertion engage in the more is better argument?
Is trying to understand what you said a wait of time?

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Alec said “Trying to reduce CO2 is also “geo-engineering.”
That is rubbish, that is like saying that stopping polluting is also polluting.
Tom, if only in the interests of salvaging or improving your own mental health I suggest that it’s high time for you get to work on your own fairly obvious full-blown phobia to “CO2”, whose existence at current, increasing, and much higher levels in the past has essentially been proven to have either no significant adverse effect climatically or even the opposite effect as compared to the disaster-delivering agent you have been dogmatically taught to think it is by the CO2 = CAGW lobby, including the EPA which has been instrumental in demonizing CO2 by incorrectly postulating that it is a “pollutant”.
There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is a pollutant. Our own human bodies carry a ballpark concentration of CO2 at about 56,000 ppm which is still pretty easily maintainable at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of at least 10,000 ppm. [All we have to do is to be able to eliminate the CO2 we produce internally as a result of living so as to keep body pH at around pH = 7.37 – 7.41 [+/-]. The gradient between exhaled CO2 = 40,000 ppm and atmospheric CO2 = 10,000 ppm is still 30,000 ppm, so increased rate and depth of breathing can handle this increased atmopheric CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm without any significant threat to human life and living.]
This being the case, you simply must realize that you are not in control of your own thought process if you have accepted the CO2 = pollutant propaganda, since you have fallen prey to a bona fide phobia – which for example whole countries such as India and China have in fact not fallen prey to!
Aside from the EPA’s CO2 as “pollutant” lie, even the UN’s UNFCCC severly hedged against the validity of the ipcc’s CO2 = CAGW climate change “science” by excluding countries containing ~5 billion of the earth’s ~6.7 billion people from having to follow its Kyoto Protocols, thus apparently only very half-heartedly directed at reducing fossil fuel CO2 output. Again, India and China obviously don’t buy the ipcc’s climate “science”.
To start with I suggest that you totally ignore the thoroughly discredited “might-could” disasterizing pleas from “mainstream” Climate Science; and immediately forget the Precautionary Principle, under which everything becomes a lethal threat simply because nothing can be proven to not possibly constitute the cause for a disaster or apocalypse, including using the PP itself!
Tom, in this case the CO2 = CAGW lobby has got you running around like a chicken with its head cut off, and that is simply no way for you to live your own life.

@davidmhoffer said “According to UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut, the earth has been cooling since 1998. ”
Odd, as the GISS data actually said this.
“NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
01.19.12
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
Oh, and what was the sun doing at that point?

@ Jim, wait, so you are saying your owner assertion was a waste of time? Clearly not my good man, chin up. I shall ask again since it deserves follow-up.
Jim says “Should we burn all coal this way or run some of it through our energy extracting systems. Our coal burning operations also run “cleaner” than natural coal seam fires”
That suggests that the CO2 released from the coal seam fires is greater than our impact from the dawn of the industrial revolution. Is that indeed the case? And doesn’t that assertion engage in the more is better argument?

[snip]
• • •
OK, it is clear other commenters are getting weary of Tom Deutsch (who already outed his name here yesterday in several comments before switching back to just “Tom”).
And I’ve grown tired as well especially since Tom is a shape shifter in violation of site policy. So far, he has had these personas here (at least the ones I’ve found, there may be more), all coming from the same Cox communications IP block, and with four different email addresses, three of which appear fake.
Tom
Tom Deutsch
Bystander
FairPlay
Moderate Republican
WUWT site policy says:
A real working email address that you own (as a commenter) is required, so that I may contact you if needed. False or misleading email addresses may earn banishment. Changing handles and/or changing email addresses to get around this will also earn the same fate.
Therefore, I’m pulling the handle for you.
Enjoy your weekend, Anthony

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 9:55 pm
JPeden says – “There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is a pollutant.” Oh, so there is no level at which it becomes problematic in anyway? None? Ever?
Tom, again I beg of you, please…please, for your own sake…forget the Precautionary Principle or any similar train of thought! How will you be able to function in life if you think everything is a “pollutant”? Just look where it’s got you so far!

Tom went into all-flame-out mode in this thread – he had been a small time drive by troll for years under his other monikers, but on this thread he really exploded. It reminds me of some trolls at Breitbart who answer every comment on a thread to make it unreadable.
So obviously the Obama-EPA trolls don’t want people to have debates about coal power, they want it dead, dead, dead.
Alec, if you’re still reading: This hurts them. Do more of it!

For those who are concerned about burning coal, there is a small silver lining to those dark clouds (artistic licence, they are rarely dark ;)), those trace elements released do some good, and a recent report on mercury levels in natural soils as opposed to downwind of coal powered stations found that many natural areas had higher levels than the downwind areas.
nora.nerc.ac.uk/586/1/Biofortification.pdf (selenium lack since clean air act)
people.csail.mit.edu/…/sulfur_obesity_alzheimers_muscle_wasting.ht.. (sulphur lack ditto)

Tom says:
May 11, 2012 at 8:43 pm
@ Smokey – No need to become so emotive.
I simply asked if perhaps you can show me where you, Alec, Gail and Jim have indicated that that more is not better, or for a limit?
________________________________
Tom, Why the heck does the government have to micromanage everything especially when they so totally screw it up. A life time of working in safety engineering and quality engineering has given me lots of first hand experience in how messed up government bureaucracies are. The carbon cycle does a find job of “Limiting Carbon Dioxide” all by its lonesome. Unlike you, Smokey, Alec and I are capable of seeing that it was the carbon cycle that removed most of the carbon dioxide in the primitive atmosphere in the first place.
Plants handle levels up to 2,000 ppm just fine and humans up to 5000 ppm so get back to me when the CO2 level reaches 1000 ppm. Of course we will be back to an ice age by then.

I would suggest that tommy is not interested in actually arriving at the Truth, and should be permanently SNIPPED.

Otter says:
May 12, 2012 at 5:08 am
I would suggest that tommy is not interested in actually arriving at the Truth, and should be permanently SNIPPED.
________________________________
Tom certainly seems to be looking for “sound bits” he can take out of context to show how “Deniers” agree that CO2 is evil and should be regulated doesn’t he.

Gail, DirkH, agreed~ his ‘unlimited amounts’ of Everything, would appear to me an attempt to link to such ill-conceived thinking as ‘big oil’ wants to destroy the world in order to make profit.
Of course, being unable to understand the closed warmist mind, I could be wrong. One thing is certain, tommy has unlimited amounts of [self-snip] for brains.

wayne says:
May 12, 2012 at 5:23 am
“LFTR in 5 Minutes – THORIUM REMIX 2011 ”
Thanks Wayne; marvelous video!

Some day, I suspect we may be able to purchase – for a price – electricity from China who is putting one new coal fired power plant on-line every week. This remains an option to supplement our foray into unpredictable, unsustainable alternative energies on which we are squandering our resources.
Obama has done what the Communists predicted: The USA is being destroyed from within by an anti-Capitalist, bowing to every foreigner, never apologetic enough, class warfare, Federal debt buster, embarrassed to be an American.
Obama’s re-election campaign slogan should be: Vote For Obama. Let Him Finish The Job.

I believe that Roger Revelle is widely credited with making the public aware of the ‘danger’ of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in his ground-breaking article “Carbon Dioxide and World Climate,” which appeared in the August, 1982 edition of The Scientific American. I believe this article gave the impression that this was a linear or accelerating effect with no indication of logarithmic saturation. As far as I can recall, there was no serious criticism of the proposed theory–it was generally accepted as an established fact. It also was attractive to those who like to think that modern man is the root of all evil. It is no wonder, then, that the new cadre of atmospheric scientists since then have eagerly striven to be the first to detect ‘real’ evidence of the obvious truth of this theory.
I do not recall seriously questioning this myself before watching a David Archibald video presentation. The “miniscule effect” of CO2 can be readily seen in this MODTRAN plot of the effect of CO2 doubling on the amount of thermal radiation escaping to the upper atmosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
I have not been able to altogether dismiss the claims of the professional ‘Peak Oil’ presenters, as the data on declining discoveries appears to be like the proverbial “Hand writing on the wall” signaling the coming end of the petroleum age. One speaker (Video: “Unconventional Oil and Gas: Reshaping Energy Markets” at the 59 min mark) said that this decline was due to investors, from about 1984 on, regarding oil exploration to be an unnecessary expense. However, it does appear we are going ever further afield to obtain the remaining petrochemical energy.
As far as I can tell, thorium nuclear is the most likely successor to the use of petrochemical energy. I do not know if a Romney Administration would advance or delay its development. The characterization as “Nuclear Green” by some of its proponents may not sit well with new appointees who might now regard “green energy” to be “propeller-head energy.”

There seems to be a fair amount of evangelizing for thorium reactors. This discussion from From NPR, May 4, 2012, may offer a more balanced view:

Is Thorium A Magic Bullet For Our Energy Problems?
As the search for cheap, safe and non-carbon emitting sources of energy continues, a band of scientists say the answer may be nuclear reactors fueled by thorium. Others caution that thorium reactors pose waste and proliferation risks. Ira Flatow and guests discuss the pros and cons of thorium reactors.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems
It’s not all peaches & cream.

Gail Combs says:
May 13, 2012 at 1:31 pm

National Public Radio is “liberal” … So I am afraid I would take anything on NPR (or any news media) with a very large grain of salt.

You can’t judge a book by lookin’ at its cover.
–Bo Diddley
Attacking source rather than substance is not a good way to start, and I notice you never did get around to addressing the substance of the discussion, which as I read it, shows there are issues with waste and proliferation.
In my view, it makes a lot more sense to exploit existing resources than to invest very heavily in a technology we don’t need, one with potential problems, and one with unknown costs.
Simple solutions, like simple explanations, are almost always better.

steve p~ we’re talking climate change. The science is more and more solidly on Our side. When it comes to AGW shills like NPR, the source must also be attacked, as there sure as HELL ain’t no substance…
And YES, we DO want nuclear in the mix. We’ll take everything we can get.

There are also these related yet relatively recent articles, discovered separately, on the high price of CSS technology:
Combating climate change: Net benefits
The idea of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a beguiling one. Could it ever become real? (Mar 17th 2012)
http://www.economist.com/node/21550241
Tackling climate change: Deep storage
Carbon capture remains a good idea, but not much more
Oct 29th 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/21534822

Thanks Eugene.
“There was a rush of interest in CCS in the late 2000s, including $3 billion for it in America’s stimulus package of 2009. But many projects are now being cancelled. Either the developers have lost confidence in government commitments to support them or their costs have turned out higher than expected.”
That is not what scares the crap out of me. Super high pressure CO2 pumped under the ground will, in time, release to devastating ends. An earthquake, a fracture, a malfunction. When this occurs if any population is within proximity they will be killed, asphyxiated, along with all animal life forms for many, many kilometers around. This has occurred naturally in Africa deep lakes as they very occasionally decide to turn over.
CO2 Gas Build Up Causes Lake to Explode
“Over 1700 people were asphyxiated up to 16 miles away along with all their livestock, some 3000 head of cattle.”
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/01/co2-gas-build-up-causes-lake-to-explode/
Lake Nyos
“On August 21, 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, Lake Nyos suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_nyos
The only reason you would ever want to attempt CO2 sequestration is if your wanted to kill possibly many million people and animals all due to a terrorist act, natural occurrence, equipment failure, or, on purpose by the greens who “want to save the planet from the nasty humans”.
We say we are afraid of the nuclear industry but what could ever occur by them is totally dwarfed by what disaster CCS could bring into reality. People, CO2 does not make the Earth warmer. Co2 in the high atmosphere is a coolant and CO2 in the lower atmosphere does nothing, zip.

Spector says:
May 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm

I think we had better *prove* that it cannot be made to work — nobody has done that — before dismissing it as a solution to the eventual energy crisis when our petrochemical gas
tank runs dry.

Yep, if it don’t work, force it. Or go broke trying…
Asking questions about a technology, or having a discussion about its possible pros and cons is not the same thing as dismissal. I’m sure you must appreciate the distinction. and I’m also sure you must be familiar with the logical fallacy known as a strawman,
.
I haven’t seen anyone here who is proselytizing for thorium reactors make any mention of any possible downside to the technology.
Anyone old enough to recall the early PR campaigns for nuclear power, and who has paid attention since, knows that the credibility of the nuclear power industry is not very high.
There is no telling how much money has been poured into the various nuclear projects, more than a few of them black. We do know that the generals have gotten their small & powerful bombs after hundreds of tests, but we’re all still waiting for that “too cheap to meter” part of the bargain.
I oppose nuclear power because whatever man builds, nature can break. As Paul Simon sang it: “Everything put together sooner or later falls apart.”
We are ignorant of the true potential of the forces of nature on Earth, and even where precedents exist, foolish men ignore them. Huge tsunamis along the Tōhoku coast have happened before, and they will happen again, perhaps even bigger and badder than the monster that swept ashore after the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011.
I don’t get it:
We’ve seen lots of excellent effort here to debunk the CO2 scare, and falsify the CAGW conjecture… so we can build thorium reactors?
It seems to me that one likely reason for the CO2 scare was to demonize coal. All the other energy sources have benefited from coal’s persecution, including some without much merit, like wind and solar.
Meanwhile, now that the CO2 scare has been thoroughly debunked, and the wheels shot off the CAGW bandwagon, what again is the reason for not burning coal?

On the credibility issue of the nuclear industry, I also question the claims being made by wind and solar power advocates, who, after decades of massive government support, have yet to deliver any significant fraction of the power we need.
For additional reference, here is the most recent presentation of Dr. David LeBlanc, Formerly of Carleton University Physics Department, Ottawa Canada; Currently Founder of Ottawa Valley Research Associates Ltd. Ottawa Ontario, and who seems quite knowledgeable on the technical trade-offs between the various liquid fueled reactor core designs:
David LeBlanc – Potential of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactors @ TEAC3
“Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on Nov 27, 2011”
53 likes, 0 dislikes, 3,112 Views; 20:13 min
“Dr. David LeBlanc explores the diversity of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactor design options, and their rational and value.
“Presented at the 3rd Thorium Energy Alliance Conference, in Washington DC.”

Spector, I watched the first video. I much prefer documents to video, but in this case I had the bandwidth and time to sit through it, I made an exception, and it was worthwhile. Thanks for your efforts and comments here.
Let me emphasize this: I’m always in favor of R&D for promising technology, but we need to hear both sides of the story, and we need some informed discussion.
On any kind of large scale, or in any critical application, neither wind nor solar power make any sense at all. The contribution to the grid from wind and solar is meager, at best, and it serves primarily to complicate its operation, and reduce its efficiency.
At least nuclear power plants have made a significant contribution to our energy needs. The unfortunate part of the story is that the costs of this contribution are still being calculated, even while massive new ones have been added.
There are always intrigues in the important affairs of men. Accurate information is a kind of treasure. Gail and “otter,” above are right to be skeptical of NPR and our mass media, but the better approach, IMO, is to evaluate each issue on its own merits. Along with what is said, and how, propaganda is also about what is left out.
I think it’s plausible that, among experts who are knowledgeable enough to play the devil’s advocate about new or exotic technologies, most might not be free or willing to speak out.
It might be interesting to hear what an expert would describe as a worst-case scenario with a TFMSR…
We’ve heard some of the pros. What are the cons?

Gail Combs says:
May 15, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Oh and for those who do not know a “proof of design” thorium reactor was run for four years at Oak Ridge. It was politics that killed it and nothing on the scientific front that I have come across.

(Excerpts from the NPR discussion I linked earlier:)
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems

Richard Martin is the author of “SuperFuel: Thorium, The Green Energy Source for the future, and he’s a contributing editor for Wired and editorial director for Pike Research. He joins us from Boulder, Colorado. Welcome to SCIENCE FRIDAY.
FLATOW: Not everyone sees thorium reactors as cheap, clean and safe alternatives, that – as a bet for the future. With me is Dr. Arjun Makhijani. He is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He’s here in our D.C. studios. Do you agree with Richard Martin that we missed out on thorium? If we had started out with thorium, would be in better shape now?
ARJUN MAKHIJANI: I don’t think so. I think the problems of nuclear power, fundamentally, would remain. The safety problems would be different. I mean, Mr. Martin and proponents of thorium are right in the sense that the liquid fuel reactor has a number of safety advantages, but it also has a number of disadvantages.
[…]
In this reactor, because thorium is not a fissile material, you actually need either plutonium or enriched uranium to start it. In fact, this reactor that operated in Oak Ridge for a few years, it actually started up in 1964, it never used thorium to breed uranium-233.
[…]
FLATOW: So you’re saying that it doesn’t solve the safety issues.
MAKHIJANI: It doesn’t solve the proliferation problem. It doesn’t solve the waste problem, either. So every nuclear reactor, no matter what type, creates fission products, which are highly radioactive materials, some short-lived, some long-lived, to make energy.
[…]
MARTIN: However – you’re welcome. However, some of those conclusions are just wrong. So when we talk about the waste, one of the things that skeptics of the liquid fuel thorium reactor ignore is the fact that because the core is a liquid, you can continually process waste, even from existing conventional reactors into forms that are much smaller in terms of volume, and the radioactivity drops off much, much quicker. We’re talking about a few hundred years as opposed to tens of thousands of years.
So to say that thorium reactors, like any other reactor, will create waste that needs to be handled and stored, et cetera, is true, but the volume, we’re talking tenths of a percent of the comparable volume from a conventional reactor. And not only that, but we’ve got all that waste from our existing nuclear reactor fleet, just sitting around, and we’ve got no plan for it.
[…]
And because this is a self-contained, liquid fuel system, it’s – there’s no point at which you can divert material. There’s no material sitting in a warehouse somewhere, getting ready to be put in the reactor and so on. And to be able to obtain that material, you would have to somehow breach the reactor, shut it down, separate out the fissionable material and get away with it.
And as I say in “SuperFuel,” the book, good luck with that. But the other point is that even if you did manage to do that, the uranium-233 is contaminated with yet another isotope, U-232, which is one of the nastiest substances in the universe, and it makes handling and processing and separating out the U-233 virtually impossible, even for a sophisticated nuclear power lab, much less for a rogue nation, or terrorist group or someone of that ilk.
[…]
MAKHIJANI: Quickly on proliferation, then I’ll talk about waste. The Princeton University paper says that the inline reprocessing, and this is a quote, offers a way to completely bypass the uranium-232, this terrible radioactive material, contamination problem, because the 27-day half-life of protactinium-233 could be separated out before it decays to uranium-233.
I didn’t want to say that earlier, but the bottom line from that is you have that reprocessing, you can actually get rid of the U-232 problem. This particular reactor is more vulnerable to proliferation, and I think Mr. Martin should revisit this question just for accuracy.
But on waste, here’s what Mr. Weinberg, who was the father, guru of this reaction, Dr. Weinberg, is very enthusiastic about nuclear energy. But in the ’70s, he grew more cautious on proliferation and waste. He coined the phrase Faustian bargain. It will give you a great energy source, but you’ve got to worry about proliferation and waste.
He also said that, looking back, this enthusiasm about these reactors reminds me of what Mr. Weinberg said sort of ruefully about his own excitement. He says: I was a little bit like the Ayatollah is at the moment. He said that in 1981. And then in 1994, when he wrote his memoir, he really rued the fact that waste had been relegated to a secondary issue, which is exactly what the proponents of (unintelligible), the really solid ones, you know, enthusiastic, rah-rah crowd is doing, which is relegating to a secondary issue.
Mr. – Dr. Weinberg said that if he had to do it over again, he would put the waste issue at the top of the agenda of Oak Ridge National Lab.
[…]
MARTIN: […] But I also want to take just a step back, here, if I may for a moment, and talk about this whole issue of risk. We’ve been focusing in on some details of protactinium and the build-up of U-232 and so on, but my question to Dr. Makhijani would be: OK, you have concerns about thorium-based nuclear power, and those are not to be dismissed lightly. But what is the answer if this is not it?
Because as I demonstrate in “SuperFuel,” the book, renewables are not going to solve our problem in the time scales that we need it – in other words, in the next 30 to 50 years. Solar and wind and so on are just not going to be at large enough scales and at the prices to really replace a significant fraction of fossil fuel-based energy in the timeframes that we need.

Aaah. Now I see; if it’s not thorium, what else could it be? 30 to 50 years?
Questions, questions…

Here is another long and detailed technical video presentation by Dr. David LeBlanc and hosted by the University of Tennessee, Department of Nuclear Engineering on the design trade-offs of Molten Salt Reactors.
Design Fundamentals of Molten Salt Reactors
“Abstract:
“Molten Salt Reactors have a great potential as advanced nuclear reactors with rising interest worldwide. Historically known as the optimal Thorium breeder they are also surprisingly attractive as simple converter reactors using Low Enriched Uranium, not to mention being ideal for Transuranic waste destruction. Design flexibility also extends to a wide variety of choices such as Single Fluid vs. Two Fluid and/or fast spectrum vs. soft. A review of design fundamentals and proposed options will be covered with an emphasis on minimizing technological uncertainty.”
2/1/2012 1:30 PM EST Length: 01:01:47
http://160.36.161.128/UTK/Viewer/?peid=811fb3c7c7714c93a7954874bad331f5