Guest post by Alec Rawls
The graphics were changed in the last two days, but Conn Carroll at the Washington Examiner took a screenshot of Obama’s “All of the Above” energy policy page on Tuesday. “Notice anything missing?” he asks:
The updated graphics actually retain the same omission. They still omit the source of almost half of all U.S. electricity generation (coal), and only add the non-existent eco-unicorn called “clean coal”:
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.
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.” So still no coal in Obama’s plan. Our existing energy infrastructure is to be jettisoned, as Obama promised in 2008:
If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
Obama’s EPA rules already block all new coal plant construction, so his graphics are just looking forward to his true objectives: all-but-coal for now, with oil and nuclear to disappear next.
That slick “clean coal” logo indicates that the coal omission was not a mistake
The Obamatons had the clean-coal stupidity all ready to go, indicating a conscious decision to leave it out. This is reinforced by the absence of the clean-coal logo, not just from their pick-a-topic selector, but also from their header logo. Another of Obama’s eco-pages still has the original header:
That page now includes a clean coal section but the Google cache from May 3rd shows that it was recently added. The people who put these pages together are so anti-coal that they couldn’t even bring themselves to include the utterly phony “clean coal” in their proclaimed “All of the Above” energy strategy. That shows a extraordinary level of zealotry.
Kinda fits with the longstanding “climate denier” smear (recently on display), where people who don’t buy CO2 alarmism are likened to those who deny the holocaust of the Jews during WWII. The alarmists are all projection all the time. Their supposed scientists at the IPCc are omitting virtually all of the evidence for a solar driver of climate from AR5, and here their political leaders are trying to disappear the primary energy source upon which modern society currently relies, yet it is supposedly the rest of us who are conspiring to cover stuff up.
The conniving mind cannot conceive of another mode of being.
RE: Steve P: (May 14, 2012 at 6:51 am)
“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.'”
The primary problem, or technical challenge that I see with nuclear power in general is designing structures that must work in an environment where neutrons are flowing and thus progressive neutron capture will cause their atomic nuclei to increase in size and eventually decay into atoms having the next higher proton count. I assume this issue is dealt with by using structures that have low neutron capture rates when compared with thorium or uranium. I understand that existing reactor fuel rods must be removed after about only one percent of the fuel has fissioned due to neutron capture degradation. The liquid salt carrier proposes to avoid this process by allowing continuous refreshment of the fluid so that it is not necessary to remove unspent fuel.
The Nixon and Ford administrations spent a large amount of money trying to make liquid sodium cooled, plutonium breeding reactors work to the exclusion of virtually all else as part of their vital energy security program. Here is a listing of government reactor research funding in millions of dollars that I extracted from a Kirk Sorensen video:
USAEC Breeder Reactor Appropriations (FYI 1968-1985) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Gas Cooled Thorium Liquid Metal convertors Fast Breeder Molten Salt Fast Breed Year and low-gain Reactor Breeder Reactor Reactor breeders (GCFBR) (MSBR) (LMFBR) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1968 51.6 1.3 4.6 68.4 1969 22.7 1.9 5.2 80.1 1970 22.1 1.3 5.0 87.8 1971 32.0 0.6 5.0 88.9 1972 28.8 1.0 4.8 123.2 1973 30.5 1.0 4.6 144.1 1974 12.6 1.8 1.6 206.6 1975 31.2 4.8 308.9 1976 52.9 8.2 3.3 351.6 Transition 14.8 3.4 0.2 101.1 quarter ---------------------------------------------------------- 1977 53.0 12.8 0.0 564.5 1978 69.6 14.7 0.0 412.8 1979 90.4 21.0 0.0 456.0 1980 57.9 14.6 0.0 476.3 1981 95.0 0.0 0.0 459.5 1982 84.0 0.0 0.0 500.4 1983 81.8 0.0 0.0 451.2 1984 70.5 0.0 0.0 303.6 1985 64.4 0.0 0.0 236.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------The primary concern here is the degree to which the factors that caused the plutonium breeding Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor project to fail, also apply to uranium breeding, ambient-pressure liqiud-state fueled reactors. Both systems do produce fission fragments with excess neutron count, however, most of these fragments decay by simple electron emission to a stable state. No long-lived plutonium or other transuranic products, which decay by fission, are produced as a *standard* part of the process. The scientist who invented the solid-state fueled, high-pressure, water-cooled reactor was convinced that this design was basically unsafe and attempted to foster a much safer system.
The claim of energy too ‘cheap to measure’ was probably based on the fact that uranium (or thorium) have on the order of a million times the energy density of petrochemicals. As liquid salt borne thorium does not require a huge explosive pressure containment system, it is possible that these claims may be more accurate this time around. But, until we actually have a functional system, there is no guarantee that some ‘black swan’ might crop up to increase the cost. In the event that one of these reactors is disrupted by some natural or man-made event, it is expected that the liquid salt will freeze and encapsulate the waste. A simple power interruption is handled automatically by the fail-safe freeze plug and drain tank.
As it takes on the order of forty years to make a major technology transition, we need to have an alternative energy resource online and ready to go before it is needed, not after people start dying as we run out of the petrochemical energy needed to support food production and distribution. Peak Oil speakers are intimating this might become a problem in the next few years; petroleum industry sources are saying that it is multiple decades away.
Here is Kirk Sorensen’s video on why thorium was closed down to focus development on the Fast Breeder Reactor:
The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn’t This Happen
(and why is now the right time?)
“Uploaded by GoogleTechTalks on Dec 22, 2011″
461 likes, 13 dislikes; 38,961 Views; 36:02 min
“Google Tech Talk
December 16, 2011
Presented by Kirk Sorensen”
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 @ur momisugly 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.”
Gail Combs says: @ur momisugly 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.
____________________________________
Steve P says: @ur momisugly May 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
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.
___________________________________
Let me translate for you. A large grain of salt means see if you can find primary sources to verify the data. Heck you should do that with ANY news media including my Father-in-Law’s paper.
On the Thorium waste and proliferation. Kirk Sorensen’s video presented above addresses the issue much better that I can. Pay special note to the difference between the two plutonium isotopes. One is used in medicine? (from thorium) and the other is used to make bombs (from uranium?) – double check the video to make sure I remembered that correctly.
The waste is also not a problem since it is “used up” unlike current reactors. That two is very well explained. In fact the thorium reactor can “burn up” the nuclear waste in storage.
I linked to the websites since they are better than I at giving explanations.
I am not against coal, oil, gas and pro-nuclear, I am against a MONOPOLY and that is what we are being herded into. The oil shortage in 1974-75 was a royal pain in the backside and so were the earlier blackouts. A diversified energy portfolio just makes sense.
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?
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.
Thorium is much more abundant than other high energy material. Much of the preliminary work has been done. It is much safer and simpler than conventional nuclear and it provides constant power. Of the various “new” sources of power, bio-fuel, solar, wind and geothermal; thorium looks the most promising. If the government is going to waste my tax dollars at least we should pursue something promising.
Gail Combs says:
May 15, 2012 at 12:11 pm
(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
Aaah. Now I see; if it’s not thorium, what else could it be? 30 to 50 years?
Questions, questions…
RE: Steve P: (May 15, 2012 at 10:30 am)
“We’ve heard some of the pros. What are the cons?”
A list of nuclear energy cons presented by Green activist Elisabeth May appears at the nine minute mark in the video included the post above by wayne, at May 12, 2012 at 5:23 am, (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/11/if-obama-is-going-to-kill-coal-he-has-to-hide-the-body/#comment-983241). You can use the slider bar to select that section without going through the whole two hour video.
Dr. LeBlanc says that it would be necessary to do something like forcing water into the LFTR core to cause a widespread release of radioactivity. One might say that the high-pressure, water-cooled reactor is an accident waiting to happen. However, it has been stated that the Fukushima reactor actually survived the incident, but the unprotected Diesel backup generators were all wiped out by the tsunami so there was no way to restart the reactor or keep the cooling pumps working after it had been shut down in response to the earthquake (See the 49:50 minute mark of the same video referenced above).
A *secret* operational security, threat-analysis should be required of any such installation or design. That should include hostile cyber attacks.
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
To be upright and scientific about it, you should propose feasible falsification tests yourself, and indeed try to perform them. The true power of falsification is that it must be possible to perform such tests. Climate Science can neither propose any for itself, nor successfully falsify the default Null (natural variation did it all, no carbonic intervention required).
Gail;
By this time next year, the issues of Thorium and renewables may be moot. For years I’ve been following the privately funded work at LPPhysics.com and they’ve leveraged less than $3 million total to reach this point, so far:
Distributed, dispatchable, waste-free. Deployable within 5 yrs. Check it out.
Meanwhile, we’ve still got quite a bit of coal. Figures vary, but I gather we have well over 100 years of proven reserves. It is conceivable that reserves are being downplayed, and – especially with oil – exploration either deferred (or done quietly) in order to create the illusion of scarcity, and thereby drive up prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
As Gail notes, you should try to get direct, source, or raw data, but unless you create your own, that is not always possible. There are middlemen of one kind or another involved in the process of data collection, reduction, analysis, and dissemination, and that creates numerous opportunities, not only for mistakes, but for mischief. But, that’s how bureaucracies operate, and that is how they go corrupt.
So, whose data do you trust? As I’ve noted, accurate information is like treasure, and some of it is guarded as such, surrounded by Churchill’s “bodyguard of lies.”
As I see it, the waste-disposal feature of the LFTR may be its most promising feature, since we have other sources of energy, but, as SuperFuel: author Richard Martin notes: “…we’ve got all that waste from our existing nuclear reactor fleet, just sitting around, and we’ve got no plan for it.”
A quick check of the internet yielded this highly technical, one-hour, 2007 presentation on Focused Fusion presented as a Google TechTalk.
2007 Google Tech Talk: Focus Fusion –
The Fastest Route to Cheap, Clean Energy?
“Uploaded by FocusFusionSociety on Apr 20, 2011”
67 likes, 1 dislikes, 6,657 Views; 1:04:36 hrs
“Before Focus Fusion-1 became operational in October 2009, Eric Lerner presented the plan to make it happen at Google’s Mountain View, CA HQ. What do you think: Is it time Google added aneutronic fusion to its portfolio of wind and solar projects?”
An ‘All of the Above’ policy probably should include support for this kind of research as well.
Brian H says:
May 16, 2012 at 2:53 am
Gail;
By this time next year, the issues of Thorium and renewables may be moot. For years I’ve been following the privately funded work at LPPhysics.com and they’ve leveraged less than $3 million total to reach this point, so far….
________________________________
Thank you for the pointer. Like Thorium it looks like it is certainly worth watching.
Spector says: @ur momisugly May 16, 2012 at 10:15 am
….An ‘All of the Above’ policy probably should include support for this kind of research as well.
_____________________________
You are correct. It should be an ‘All of the Above’ policy. Solar, Wind and Geothermal can easily fill niche markets. If you are stuck with wood, cloth and hand tools (Africa) a windmill that can be build and maintained with readily available resources makes a lot of sense. Wind can be used to pump water and grind grain, any application where irratic behavior of the energy source is not a problem. Solar with batteries can be used for lights, fence chargers to confine livestock or keep livestock out of crops among other applications. Passive Geothermal is another relatively reasonable idea for the niche market.
However for the grid you need a controllable and constant energy source. Solar and Wind just do not meet that criteria. Coal, gas, oil, and nuclear (fission and fusion) do. The fact that a large portion of the world’s politicians can not grasp that simple concept leaves me thinking they do not have the intellectual qualifications to make decisions for the rest of us.
The driving force behind Focus Fusion at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics is scientist, writer, and researcher Eric J. Lerner. He authored the 1991 book The Big Bang Never Happened, A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (1991), so it’s safe to say, he’s something of a maverick.
At first blush, the technology looks very promising, with no obvious technical hurdles standing in the way. There’s quite a bit of information at the LPPhysics.com website, and no broadband required to consume it.
Brian H says:
May 16, 2012 at 2:40 am
“To be upright and scientific about it, you should propose feasible falsification tests yourself, and indeed try to perform them.”
I have proposed a simple and straightforward test of the hypothesis: to falsify it only requires showing global harm from the rise in CO2. Any putative harm must be traceable directly to the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Any such evidence of global harm must itself be testable and falsifiable per the scientific method.
So far, no one has shown any global harm due to the rise in CO2. The second part of the hypothesis — that the rise in CO2 is beneficial — has been confirmed by satellite measurements. The planet is greening as a result of the rise in CO2. The biosphere is clearly benefitting. Thus, more CO2 is beneficial.
It is really a simple, testable, and falsifiable hypothesis. I cannot falsify it, and so far no one else has been able to, either. So until someone can show global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2 emissions, the hypothesis stands.
Smokey;
True; but the big focus has been on whether CO2 is a back-radiator, etc. The underlying issue of harmfulness has been pushed by Hansen-esque nonsense. It needs much more attention. My take is that it is so beneficial the world should be aggressively unlocking the sequestered stores in fuels and rock at every opportunity.
Indeed! The nicheness of the renewable sources is glossed over by the inane extrapolations into baseload territory. Patently unfit for purpose.
As for funding sources, I know that LPP does not agree with me on this, but I really hope it is able to carry through without access to government funds, except perhaps some local city or state level grants. The pure horror of the decision-making process at the federal level (DoE, DoD, EPA, etc.) worsened by Congressional mandates and plug-pulling as happened early this century, means it is not worth having if you can possibly avoid it.
BTW, if you want to make yourself dizzy, try extrapolating the effects of world-wide rapidly deployable generators at <10% best current costs, taking load OFF transmission grids by being distributed near local loads. I project an explosion of human well-being and wealth unparalleled for extent and speed in recorded history.
Turning mass-deployment of renewables into instant economic roadkill is just an immensely satisfying side-effect.
Here is a PBS documentary style video presentation on another Fusion Power development effort. It looks like we may have several much safer nuclear options in the near future. BTW, The 4th Thorium Energy Alliance -The Future of Energy- Conference is going to be held in Chicago on May 31-June 1, 2012.
In the Footsteps of Fusion
“Uploaded by starscientific on Jun 26, 2011”
97 likes, 3 dislikes, 11,168 Views; 14:24 min
“This video provides an overview of the current state of play in the energy sector including current alternative energies, the history of fusion and those currently involved in the fusion race.”