AP: Obama says he’ll unveil climate plan in Tuesday speech ‘for the sake of our children’. It seems though, that the world is making a collective yawn (consensus?) so far given the views. The video has been up for several hours and has only a few hundred views and has 437 “likes” as of this writing.
The video description says:
At 1:35 on Tuesday June 25th President Obama will speak at Georgetown University on the growing threat of climate change. He will lay out his vision of where we need to go, to do what we can to address and prepare for the serious implications of a changing climate. Tune in at whitehouse.gov/live
This quote from the video makes me laugh and angry at the same time:
“We’ll need scientists to design new fuels and farmers to grow them,” he said. “We’ll need engineers to devise new sources of energy and businesses to make and sell them.”
The hell with “new fuels and farmers to grow them”, biofuels are low return on investment and raise the cost of our food supply; just get a Thorium reactor program started. The technology has been around for years, and the Chinese are already headed down that path.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As I said on where you recently posted that was similar to this, the View count means nothing. YouTube doesn’t update it in real time, not always anyway.
This video had 301+ Views. Note the plus sign.
Further, at the time of your screen shot, it had 437 Likes, 67 Dislikes. So you can see for yourself that the View counter is off.
Kevin Kilty–
The “$300 billion” is an absurd number. There are already corporations ready to BUILD LFTRs like FLibe Energy Run by Kirk Sorensen.
The Main reason Flibe can’t get LFTRs built is that the rules/regulations/approval process isn’t in place for LFTRs in the US. A fairly straight forward process, but the NRC/EPA and other agencies aren’t interested in LFTRs as it doesn’t serve their agendas.
It’s pathetic.
“Change you’ve been deceived in”
Stephen Rasey says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:00 am
@SAMURAI
You have proven my point. Your discussion focused on the reactor and its safety and paid little heed to the reprocessing side of the process.
In a working LFTR generating commercial power, there is fission and the creation of daughter products and chains of decay. Reactor poisons accumulate. Dealing with these poisons is the trick. Check out Wikipedia LTFR:Removal of Fission Products This is all chemistry.
====================================
Indeed, there is a lot of chemistry, but hardly all. From your own link:
Some elements like Xe and Kr come out easily as gas, assisted by a sparge of helium. In addition a part of the “noble” metals are removed together with the gas as a fine mist.
The more “noble” metals (Pd, Ru, Ag, Mo, Nb, Sb, Tc… ) do not form fluorides in the normal salt, but form fine metallic particles in the salt. They can plate out at metal surfaces like the heat exchanger or some kind of high surface area filters that are easier to remove. Still there is some uncertainty where these noble elements end up, as the MSRE only provided a relatively short operating experience and independent laboratory experiments are difficult.
But there is still significant chemical reprocessing of the salt. That is a good thing. Since we’re talking chemical processing and separation instead of isotopic reprocessing and separation, it is relatively easy to do. Conversely uranium enrichment is much more complicated because the isotopes cannot be processed chemically. And, no, I would say that the 2 salt designs are more common than the single salt designs.
I think a fair assessment of the technology is provided in one of the linked references:
http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/124670.pdf
If Obama goes all in on a carbon tax or increased coal plant standards, then I think at least one of WV’s senators is going to have some serious problems. Manchin would be the obvious one but he was just re-elected. Maybe Rockefeller won’t be able to buy his way out of this one in 2014. It’ll also make Baucus’ bow-out in Montana all the more prescient. It’s almost like he knew this was going to happen…
Views are now up to 297K, like dislike still running ~2:1 for like.
Rockefeller announced some time ago that he would not run for re-election
@Tsk Tsk 5:27 pm
Indeed, there is a lot of chemistry, but hardly all.
Ok, fair enough. It is not “all chemistry”. I just wanted to point out the elephant in the room.
The concept of on-site continuous reprocessing is going to be the engineering and regulatory restraints on LFTRs, but key to LFTRs economic viability.
If you think that the two-fluid core design is favored, then there is another issue: Oak Ridge never built one; they built the one-core MSR. So who has?
My friend knows the current regulatory process inside and out, and part of his cost estimate is based on regulatory and legal hurdles. Look, all I’m telling you is what someone incredibly knowledgable about nuclear power thinks is a best guess for how much effort is needed. You do know that $300 billion is very easy to spend if governments and lawyers are involved?