Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Forbes contributor Steve Denning, the best hope of finding a solution to climate change is to commit the global economy to discovering an entirely novel source of energy.
The One Viable Solution To Climate Change
Jul 12, 2019, 06:37pm
Steve Denning Senior Contributor
Leadership Strategy I write about Agile management, leadership, innovation & narrative.…
Something has to be done. But what? The problem is that none of the paths presently under consideration are viable, except one.
The Limits Of Wind, Solar And Batteries
As explained in a paper from the Manhattan Institute, we are near the theoretical limits of what is possible from efficiency improvements in existing hydrocarbon technology or from wind, and solar energy and battery storage: those technologies are radically inadequate to handle the challenge of climate change.
…
Nuclear Power
Other experts push for greater investment in nuclear power, which is the second largest low-carbon power source after hydroelectricity. It supplies about 10% of global electricity generation. While these experts push for nuclear power as “the answer”, disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima dominate the popular imagination about nuclear power and make wider implementation politically difficult.…
More Regulatory Action And Voluntary Efforts
Meanwhile, regulatory action or voluntary efforts will be utterly insufficient to make a difference. The 2015 Paris Agreement called on countries to individually make their best efforts to contain the damage. This was perceived as a positive step, but it was not enough to stay climate change, even if the Agreement were to be fully implemented.
…
A New Manhattan Project
So what if a massive effort in basic research with the best minds and adequate funding was undertaken to find new technology for creating non-polluting energy for the planet?
What if it was launched by one country to get it started and then other countries were invited to join it so as to make it a multinational effort.
Is there any real alternative, except denial?
When do we stop our magical thinking and work on the one thing that will sustain the human race? Is there anything more urgent or important?
When do we start?
Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/07/12/the-one-viable-solution-to-climate-change/
Has anyone else noticed how weak green excuses for not embracing nuclear power are? I mean, on one hand greens tell us the world will end in 12 years or by 2050 or whatever, yet in the same breath they tell us nuclear power is too dangerous because there might be a few meltdowns.
How could the risk of a few meltdowns possibly be worse than the end of the world?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How much CO2 needs to be kept from going into the atmosphere? https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo
We already invest in several magic solutions: fusion, tidal, etc. These will not supply our needs in the medium term. Long-term, fusion has potential but enormous challenges. Fission is so much easier to do. The fuel supply is nearly as infinite as for deuterium. I expect the commercialization of a thorium reactor to be from either India or China, since they are able to conduct research without the lawsuits and politics in Western Europe, Australia, and North America.
Thorium??? Why thorium? What do you think that is going to accomplish???
Manhattan Project? Why not shove 500 million in the direction of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation. They’ve been doing fusion research on a shoe string budget for years. Their reactor design is 100 times more efficient than Lockheed Martins, small and relatively compact in comparison to ITER, and you could park it just about anywhere.
Paraphrase (but accurate) “We must stop magical thinking, and replace it with…… more magical thinking.”
Those on the ideological Left have spent their entire lifetimes opposing nuclear power, mostly out of ignorance and fear. It’s simply too much for them to turn around and say that was a lifetime of mistaken advocacy that has now threatened life on earth. What will they say? We were 180 degrees wrong on that issue but now trust us on THIS issue?
That said, if they were as convinced of the risks facing mankind s they say they are, that’s exactly what they would do.
We already had a Manhattan Project for energy. It was called the Manhattan Project.
+100
E=mc^2 points for Griffendor!
The most amazing thing is that Forbes readers are willing to expend some energy on nothing!
Another suicidal Kool-aid drink purveyor that claims his version of suicide is salvation.
The Manhattan Project was the urgent realization of proposed plans and designs that showed great promise.
Keep in mind, the Manhattan Project used massive resources, especially the best and brightest scientists; all at a time when the every other effort were all to build/supply materials to prosecute war on land, sea and in the air.
Steve Denning’s fantasy is just that, pure fantasy.
No new concepts, no new technological theories, No new or novel designs, no real leaps in efficiency for achieving Denning’s pink unicorn fantasy.
N.B. How Denning ignores massive destruction of wildlife by renewable energy generating sources. Denning also ignores renewables’ requirements for vast land use and renewables’ negative effects on energy costs, property values and human health.
Yet, Denning is all freaked out by a few nuclear accidents that harmed very few people. Incidents that fail to eliminate nuclear power generation as the safest method, by far.
Only government and organizations funded by government, taxes or donations believe that throwing money at problems is a solution. Real capitalists recognize that throwing good money after bad is always a bad idea.
Yet, this is exactly what Steve Denning claims is urgently essential.
Denning’s suicidal kool-aid for a climate distraction from thirty years of failed alarmist claims and demands.
One also suspects that Denning or people he knows need high paying low work positions.
A new Manhattan Project???
If I remember correctly, what The Manhattan Project produced was a few MASSIVE explosions to end a genuine threat.
It put the nail in the coffin of WW2 which had cost millions of lives while saving up to a million additional lives.
The side benefit was a reliable source of energy to save and improve the lives of millions more.
The Greens don’t like that.
The Greens want a “Manhattan Project” that will blow up the economy and cost the lives and welfare of millions.
And all to prevent an unproven and hypothetical Man-Made CO2 Bomb.
Hire J.K. Rowling as energy advisor
Run by the Ministry of Magic; yea that’ll work out well, won’t it?
I want to find a way to spin straw into gold. I know it must be possible because I want it to be possible. So let’s throw billions of dollars at the problem and really really believe real real hard that we can find a way to spin straw into gold. First star on the right and straight ahead till dawn.
Two power sources come to mind:
1) Solar power satellites. Satellites in geosynchronous orbit use giant solar arrays to collect sunlight and beam it to Earth as microwaves. Receiving stations on the ground convert the microwave energy and transmit it through the standard electricity grid. Drawback: anything flying through the beams will be incinerated.
2) Zero-point modules. These are featured on the sci-fi series “Stargate SG-1.” Developed by the Ancients, they are astonishingly powerful, efficient, and compact units that draw nearly limitless energy directly from hyperspace. Drawbacks: hyperspace would need to be proven to exist, and an efficient way of tapping into its energy would need to be developed.
I think either of these would be a suitable candidate for the new Manhattan Project.
Neither of those is practical, and would ended up being additional “stranded assets” (in addition to Nuclear) once the Hydrino-powered thermal and MHD reactors take hold.
Speaking of Manhattan what’s the lowdown? Not getting like South Oz are they?
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/lights-slowly-come-back-on-in-manhattan-after-major-power-failure/ar-AAEiYvb
Aren’t we already doing the Manhattan project 2.0 with the ITER?
Russia (believe it or not) is leading the way w/next generation nukes, the commercially-operating sodium-cooled fast-breeder BN-800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
The Manhattan Project aimed at something – a transuranic nuclear fission chain reaction – which had been shown by solid science to be possible. They turned good theory into good design.
Forbes’ fantasy fairy Manhattan project is the opposite – it is akin to alchemy, aiming at something that is demonstrably technically impossible – the storage of vast unprecedented quantities of power, safely, economically, and without nuclear reactions.
While you’re at it, why don’t you invite Warren Buffet, George Soros and all the new green investors to back a scheme to turn lead into gold. Self financing decontamination – what’s not to like?
OK.
The nuclear power subject needs a critical summary that presents the black hat facts about nuclear power.
There are two types of fission reactors:
1) Thermal spectrum fission reactors (all commercial, civil reactors).
Thermal spectrum fission reactor use and are limited to a maximum of 5% U235 enrichment.
Thermal spectrum reactors slow down the emitted neutrons using either water or graphite to roughly the speed of the uranium atoms which greatly increases the chance of neutron absorption.
A thermal spectrum fission reactor failure will not result in a dirty fission bomb explosion. The fission reactor explosions that have occurred were due to the hydrogen explosions and/or steam explosions caused by fuel rod meltdowns.
The liquid fuel reactor is the only thermal spectrum reactor that can be used for breeding.
2) Fast Thermal spectrum reactor. This is an ‘experimental’ reactor that requires the use of 20% U235 as more neutrons are required to start fission. There is a risk on loss of coolant, for a fast spectrum reactor of a dirty fission bomb explosion.
Fast spectrum fuel rod reactors and heavy water reactors are used to produce plutonium for bombs.
The Russian reactor is a fast thermal spectrum, fuel rod, sodium cooled, reactor, that requires 20% enriched uranium and that will/can explodes as a dirty bomb if there is a loss of coolant.
Although mo one has used a liquid fuel reactor in the fast spectrum mode, a liquid fuel reactor is the safest possible fast spectrum reactor as it requires a third as much uranium and there are possible core designs that could protect against the dirty fission bomb problem.