Is Thorium the Biggest Energy Breakthrough Since Fire? Possibly. (Forbes)

[wtmusic]

"For the past several months, a friend of mine has been telling me about the potentially game-changing implications of an obscure (at least to me) metal named Thorium after the Norse god of thunder, Thor.

It seems like he is not the only person who believes thorium, a naturally-occurring, slightly radioactive metal discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, could provide the world with an ultra-safe, ultra-cheap source of nuclear power.

Last week, scores of thorium boosters gathered in the United Kingdom to launch a new advocacy organization, the Weinberg Foundation, which plans to push the promise of thorium nuclear energy into the mainstream political discussion of clean energy and climate change. The message they’re sending is that thorium is the anti-dote to the world’s most pressing energy and environmental challenges."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/

[bananas]

1. Another newbie gets taken in by the Thorium hype

"an obscure (at least to me) metal named Thorium"

[txlibdem]

5. Dumb "hyp-ies" probably believe that the US had a Thorium reactor running for 20,000 hrs in the 60s

And all the bugs were worked out during that time. The project was only canceled because you cannot make bombs with a Thorium reactor.

This ignorant type of person thinks it's a good thing that Thorium reactors will produce 200 times the energy per kg of fuel as today's best Uranium reactors. Oh, those dummies also believe that Thorium reactors produce 3.5 MILLION times as much energy as coal power plants.

:sarcasm:

:dunce:
:dunce:
:dunce:
:dunce:
:dunce:

[bananas]

10. The 1960s Molten Salt Reactor experiment ran on Uranium, not Thorium

And you can make bombs with a Thorium reactor.
And no, all the bugs were NOT worked out during that time, not even close.

[txlibdem]

18. Wrong on all counts...nt

[bananas]

26. Nope. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Could you back that up with documentation?

This style of argument won’t convince me of anything.

[txlibdem]

33. It is customary for the initial accusor to defend his or her position with links

The poster did not but instead made several false accusations and a couple of partially wrong statements.

I would love to take hours upon hours to educate this person, they are sorely in need of it, but alas I have no time to waste. Nor, however super-human I feel some mornings, have I the ability to fill a bottomless pit.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

45. WASH-1222 page 27: "the MSRE fuel contained no thorium"

WASH-1222 pdf: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/WASH-1222.pdf

[txlibdem]

56. Poor scholarship. The MSRE was used in a number of configurations.

It would seem that Mr. Makhijani and Ms. Boyd are unaware of the work done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under Dr. Alvin Weinberg from 1955 to 1974 on the subject of fluid-fueled reactors, particularly those that used liquid-fluoride salts as a medium in which to sustain nuclear reactions. The liquid-fluoride reactor was the most promising of these fluid-fueled designs, and indeed it did have the capability to use thorium as fuel. It was not a light-water reactor, nor was it a fast-breeder reactor. It has a thermal (slowed-down) neutron spectrum which made it easier to control and vastly improved the amount of fissile fuel it needed to start. It operated at atmospheric pressure rather than the high pressure of water-cooled reactors. It was also singularly suited to the use of thorium due to the nature of its chemistry and the chemistry of thorium and uranium.

http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/

And from your link:

Page 27
It should be noted that the MSRE fuel contained no thorium whereas the proposed MSBR fuels would include thorium as the fertile material for breeding.

Page 51, Conclusions
This concept offers the potential for... efficient use of Thorium as a fertile material.

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/WASH-1222.pdf

A major program activity from 1965 through 1969 was the operation of the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). This reactor was built to test the types of fuels and materials that would be used in thorium reactors; it also provided operation and maintenance experience.

http://energyfromthorium.com/msrp/

[bananas]

69. LOL - Poor scholarship? You just confirmed what I said - they never used Thorium in the MSRE.

Your first quote says "it did have the capability to use thorium as fuel" - but it was never tested with thorium, and there's a big difference between theory and reality.

Your second quote used the words "proposed" and "potential" - it never happened in reality.

Your third quote uses the phrase "would be used" - but never was used, it was never even tested.

The fact that the MSR was run on uranium debunks the conspiracy theory you claimed in post #5 where you said "The project was only canceled because you cannot make bombs with a Thorium reactor."

If the MSR was so much better than LWR, they could have used MSR's fueled with uranium, that conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.

[txlibdem]

71. MSRE = Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment

Note the word Experiment. EXPERIMENT.

In each of the 3 links I provided there is text that says that the purpose of the MSRE was designed to prove the design for use with Thorium as the fuel. A more thorough perusal of the data on your part would have told you that the design passed all the necessary tests and modifications were made as new tests or new data came up. The logical next step would have been to build a fully working... that was the point at which funding was pulled.

LOL right back at'cha.

[bananas]

83. You're wrong

In post #18 you incorrectly said: "Wrong on all counts...nt"
That was in response to my post #10:

The 1960s Molten Salt Reactor experiment ran on Uranium, not Thorium
And you can make bombs with a Thorium reactor.
And no, all the bugs were NOT worked out during that time, not even close.

I was correct on all counts.

Now you incorrectly say "the design passed all the necessary tests and modifications were made as new tests or new data came up. The logical next step would have been to build a fully working... that was the point at which funding was pulled."

No, the next logical step was to restart the project in 1974 and try to work out some more of the bugs that still hadn't been worked out. It was cancelled again in 1976.

They still haven't worked out all the bugs, in 2006 ORNL listed "Molten-Salt-Reactor Technology Gaps" with "potential" solutions and concluding that "significant work is required".

[bananas]

43. He can't, because he's wrong. nt

[Lint Head]

2. I'm holding out for Zeusium.

Or maybe some Aphroditesium might be nice.

[nilram]

44. mmm, Donuttieum!

The magic is in the hole!

[Cirque du So-What]

3. I don't know enough about this to decide one way or the other

but it *appears* to be a 'greener' alternative to mining uranium and using U-235 in reactors. Unless I'm presented with evidence of an unreported downside, I'm inclined to support this initiative.

[Kolesar]

4. The premise is that Thorium's abundance addresses the limited resources of Uranium

But that problem is taking care of itself because nuclear Uranium usage is going to decline.

By the time this "breeder dream" becomes technologically feasible, it will be way overpriced compared to renewable wind and solar. Let's save our public resources and not fund this foolish endeavor. Apply that money to reducing the deficit.

[wtmusic]

7. "...it will be way overpriced compared to renewable wind and solar."

On what are you basing that hypothesis?

[Confusious]

32. Any other science you'd like to stop?

Anything you don't agree with?

Books you'd like burned?

[MADem]

6. All thith thpeckulation ith making my head thor!!!!!

[leftyohiolib]

17. i find thith clever

[GliderGuider]

8. Anything that enables more human and economic growth is a poor choice.

Whether it's Thorium, Mr. Fusion or "Drill baby, drill" - energy enables growth. From the point of view of other species and ultimately our own, the unconstrained growth of human activity is inimical to life itself.

We are at a fork in the road of human development. One signpost reads "More Growth", one reads "More Happiness". I have made my choice - I'd rather put this effort into figuring out how we can do less with less.

Best of luck to us all.

[wtmusic]

9. Anything that enables other people to have the conveniences,

safety, and health you already enjoy?

You've got yours, so fuck everybody else? Sounds more than a bit selfish to me.

[GliderGuider]

11. It's not personal, you know.

"Al Gore lives in a big house." So what? Would it validate my opinion in your eyes if I gave up my safety and health? Would I be permitted to speak out against growth if I was poor? Besides, you really don't know what I have or don't have, aside from an internet connection, some opinions and enough education to put commas in the right places in a sentence.

I care about the quality of all life on the planet, not just human life or my own life. If no one speaks for those who cannot speak, who will be moved to act for them?

[wtmusic]

14. It would make your opinion less hypocritical.

You're asking everyone else to do without what you already have (I'll go out on a limb and assume you have a higher standard of living than most of the world).

Curious, what other life are you speaking for? Trees in the Amazon rainforest? Polar bears? How many Chinese kids are worth a polar bear?

Thorium could potentially make things better for both, while we simultaneously address population. Wouldn't that be best?

[GliderGuider]

15. No, I'm not "asking" anyone to do anything.

I'm stating my preference. Do I have a higher standard of living than much of the world? By virtue of my pre-natal choice of being born in Canada, yes I do. But that has no bearing whatsoever on my right to hold an opinion.

Who do I feel I'm speaking for? All non-human life that has no possibility of altering their fate at our hands. I don't actually see relative values between different forms of life. I believe that all life has intrinsic value, and that no life of any form should be wasted needlessly.

Thorium will not be all things to all people. As a human technology it will have advantages and disadvantages. I happen to believe that the knock-on effects of having more energy to facilitate the growth of human activity are too damaging to the biosphere for me to support.

[wtmusic]

20. Does 'no life of any form should be wasted needlessly' apply to your lunch today?

Another guess is some life form bit the dust so you could sate your hunger. So though you say there are no 'relative values between different forms of life' it would seem you're handily triumphing over other life forms when it comes to your own consumption.

Others' consumption is needless, but yours isn't.

[GliderGuider]

28. What about the worms that will eventually eat me for lunch?

Yes, of course it applies to my lunch. I am a vegetarian, so on that level I have a similar requirement to consume plants as any other vegivore of my size. I stay low on the food chain, and I eat just what I need to stay in good health.

Everyone has a right to eat, that's not the issue. Killing ten million fish in a river because the containment broke on a cyanide pond at a gold mine is the issue. Cutting down 50 trees to build a house is not the issue. Clear-cutting a 50,000 acres so a city scan be filled with McMansions is the issue.

As part of my personal system of "practical spirituality" I subscribe to the philosophy of deep ecology:

Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. The ethics of deep ecology hold that a whole system is superior to any of its parts. They offer an eight-tier platform to elucidate their claims:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
   
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
   
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
   
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
   
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
   
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
   
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
   
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

[wtmusic]

35. Sounds like an ecological manifest destiny.

Your philosophy decrees that the people starving in Somalia should appreciate where they're at, dammit, instead of "adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living".

And the effect of limiting economic growth means the flourishing of your human life is compatible with a substantial decrease in other populations. How pleasant.

High-minded trash, bordering on eugenics.

[GliderGuider]

36. Wow, something about this really seems to have triggered you!

You're reading a lot more into it than is actually there.

[txlibdem]

39. Sometimes you are not consistent in your statements

I've been trying to figure out whether you truly believe what you write or if you are just here to derail certain discussions. After all these months I can't figure out what you stand for. Your earlier post about your views was not very informative.

Do you live in a mud hut or a cave that you built with your own two hands? If not, then you are being hypocritical.

I am glad to hear that you are a vegetarian so that removes any question of what animals you kill to eat.

Do you grow your own vegetables? As you surely understand, big ag floods all the food it makes with pesticides and herbicides on 2 to 4 occasions, depending on the variety.

[GliderGuider]

42. I don't have enough space or skill to grow my own vegetables.

My partner and I eat virtually nothing but certified organic, despite the cost. We avoid GMO like the plague we believe it is. We don't live in a mud hut, we live in a small urban rental property. I take the bus to work, because I'm not in a good location for cycling. I'm relatively happy with my impact on the planet, given my capabilities and circumstances.

*************************

Since you expressed some concern about the validity of my beliefs, here's a bit of my background story so you can assess where I'm coming from. Sorry it's a bit long, but a life is a big subject.

I was born into a scientific family - my father was a research biochemist with a Harvard PhD (earned back when that still meant something), and my mother was a physicist. I was one of the "rocket boys" in the early 60s, with stars in my eyes and dreams of going to Mars - I machined my own rocket motors and casings, mixed my own fuels, developed my own tracking devices and had a couple of spectacular launch-pad failures, just like the movie "October Sky". Later on I went to university intending to become a futurist. I got hooked by software engineering, though, and ended up working in datacomm R&D for decades. I bought the whole "faster, higher, farther" thing about technology, lock, stock and two smoking barrels. I was quite sure that if we broke it we could fix it.

My family background turned me into a anti-authoritarian contrarian - being raised a scientific, atheist, socialist pacifist in a conservative rural farming community will do that to a guy. I was also a climate change denier, and eventually a devotee of guys like Bjorn Lomborg, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre.

Then I met a woman who challenged me in to investigate the facts around CO2 and global warming a little deeper. In the spirit of showing her how my scientific objectivity would smash her global warming religion to smithereens, I took up the challenge. In the process I discovered a lot I hadn't known about CO2, including how much of it we produce. One thing led to another and a few days later I was looking at Peak Oil with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Like a pendulum I swung to the opposite stop, and dropped straight down the Rabbit Hole of Doom.

I spent the next 5 years down there in an orgy of confirmation bias on every subject imaginable. Along the way I learned more than I ever wanted to know about human weakness, exploitation, greed, dominance, submission and alienation from nature - and all the incredible, catastrophic damage we are casually inflicting on our suffering, speechless planet in the name of human progress. It drove me into a despair that cost me my marriage, and was deep enough for me to seriously contemplate suicide more than once.

I eventually realized that this was much more of a spiritual crisis than a scientific one, and set about trying to discover what the word "sacred" meant to me. One of the first things I found that made sense to me was Deep Ecology. It made me realize how alienated I was from nature, and finally let me understand why people insist on treating a living, breathing biosphere full of sentient creatures as either a bag of resources or a nasty inconvenience. Along the way I integrated aspects of Zen, Taoism, Advaita, Sufi, shamanism and even a lashing of New Age ideas - all with the goal of getting re-integrated with the world around me. At the same time my previous hyper-intellectual atheism dropped away, along with any vestige of a belief in any absolute form of reality. My previous faith in science as an organizing principle suffered the same fate. My earlier intellectual, analytical approach to life was replaced by perceptions that sprang more from the heart than the head.

I started this transformation believing that humanity was something like an AIDS virus that needed to be "cured". Luckily I no longer believe that we are a broken species doomed to self-destruct by our inherent nature. Instead I believe that we have created a profoundly dis-eased culture. Our cultural narrative has become relentlessly anthropocentric and triumphalist. In the process we have separated ourselves almost entirely from nature. Even worse, we have walled off a deep and significant part of ourselves - the part that nurtures empathy and connectedness, the part that would let us know we are one with all life. In its place we have conjured dark and egoic substitutes that bear a superficial resemblance to the qualities whose absence they obscure: lust for love, violence for strength, religion for spirit, politics for community, sentimentality for compassion, duty for responsibility, economic growth for emotional maturity. Above all, we have allowed a deep cynicism to take hold in our spirits.

My exposure to Advaita and Taoism has given me a certain equanimity about things being what they are, but my readings on ecology, the environment and politics have given me an abiding sense of discomfort about what we (as a global industrial culture) are doing to the planet, with the potential for excruciatingly unpleasant outcomes for all life.

I see the "urge to triumph" that is at the core of this industrial culture as the prime culprit in our despoiling of our home. The tools of triumph are largely technological, and I have a complete mistrust of our abilities to use further technical advancement to repair the damage. The reason for that mistrust is two-fold. First, this has never happened on any significant scale in the previous 10,000 years of our civilized history. Second, the nature and purpose of technology is to facilitate victory over nature, and that victory is the very root of the problem. Ted Kaczynski had a point (insert obligatory disavowal of methods here).

I propose that in addition to cultivating ever more technology in the hopes that it will somehow eventually fix the problem, we start working on the real source of the problem - our Selves. We desperately need to regain a sense of connection, of integration with ourselves and other life. We need to calm our driving need for ever more consumption, and recognize that happiness can't be drawn from a bank account. We need to recognize that Less (stuff, activity, economic growth) is More (peace, contentment, joy). We need to learn the deep peace that comes from saying, "Enough". Doing this may not save the world but it will definitely make it a better place.

I hope my position is a little clearer now. My main objection to most of the technological discussion on this board is that I don't believe that "More" is the answer. More energy, more clever tech, more people, more engineering of plants, animals and things - I see that as the root of our predicament, virtually guaranteed to make things worse. Any time anyone champions the concept of "More" I rebel and object.

I much prefer the concept of "Less". Less human activity, less energy, less technology, less economic growth, fewer people. I have no prescription for how to get there, but those are my preferences. The kinds of things I want to see more of are friends, gardens, access to nature and spare time to enjoy it all.

As a final note, if we do take our equal place in the web of life, as Deep Ecology suggests, I believe we will finally complete the Copernican Revolution. That revolution revealed that the Earth was not the center of the physical Universe. Its completion demands that Man at last wake up to his true place as a part of the web, not a spider in the center.

[txlibdem]

58. We came from two different worlds it seems

My parents were uneducated, forcing me to become as much of an autodidact as I could. What I learned during the past 50 years is that our system is sick to the core. Companies never come out with actual advances unless the government mandates it (seat belts in cars, emissions reductions, etc); they want to make some tiny cosmetic change and proclaim that this year's model is the best thing ever. I see your view of technology in that light. You are right. My view is that if Capitalism and the monetary system are not abolished we will never grow into a species in synergy with the planet.

Too many 19th century ideas still dominate.

[GliderGuider]

60. I was taught that corporatism could be regulated to prevent its most egregious excesses

What finally cause me to give up on organized politics was the realization that corporations had found a way around the "problem" of regulation - they had simply suborned the regulators and even those charged with guarding the regulators from corruption. Kind of like an AIDS virus slipping past the body's immune system. The concentration of power appears to be an irresistible force in our culture.

In my view money and capitalism are simply technologies, and the same fundamental objections apply to them as any other technology. Of course it's one thing to see things that way, and quite another to answer they question, "So what do we do instead?"

Gift economies may work very well at the tribal level, but we're not at that level any more. Perhaps we will be there again some day, and perhaps we won't. The problem I see is that both of those options imply trouble. Getting back from here to a tribal level probably entails some significant intervening disruptions, while not getting back there likely implies some continuation of the path we're on - the one that is currently heading for the edge of a cliff.

[txlibdem]

62. I definitely oppose any effort to move back down to tribal levels.

The Earth would need to be at least 100 times larger for everyone to live as they did back in tribal times. Or the population would have to be culled back to pre-agricultural levels. Neither of those seem possible or palatable to me.

Every time you post about reducing human populations I first cringe then start wondering why you aren't factoring in the per-capita energy reducing technologies that are just now becoming available - and will be competitive with the wasteful current options by 2015 or 2020, some are already economically competitive.

So if we can survive till these technologies replace the old, wasteful, ones then each of us will be using between 10% to 20% of our current energy usage while not losing anything in the way of our lifestyle.

The examples I speak of are:
++ LED lighting (saves 85%)
++ Electric vehicles (saves 80%)
++ Geothermal heating and cooling (for homes and commercial/gov't buildings) (saves 80% to 90%)
++ Retrofitting existing buildings for energy efficiency (saves at least 40%)
++ Using passive solar design principles for new construction (saves 85%+)
++ Using concentrated solar thermal to replace as much fossils as possible for process heat in factories, restaurants, etc. (saves ???)

Given the above we can plot two intersecting lines on a grid: one for our ever-reducing energy use, the other for our expanding renewable energy generation. When the two lines intersect we will have almost no need for fossil fuels (whatever we need can be met by our domestic production). And our per-capita CO2 output will be very small. Also note that the more we reduce our energy usage the faster we will be able to become energy independent and free of the fossil fuel stranglehold.

[GliderGuider]

63. And what about food?

Technically we could reduce energy use and reduce CO2 emissions, but that would only take care of a couple of dimensions of a multi-dimensional problem. More people still equals more problems, in social organization, habitat destruction, water and soil degradation, land species extinctions, extinction of ocean fish populations through over-fishing etc.

I don't want "to reduce" populations in any eugenic sense, but I think we face a significant possibility that global population will begin to decline rapidly and involuntarily in 20 or 30 years. I can see situations in which such a decline could not be prevented, especially if the new energy utopia doesn't come to fruition. And I can easily foresee economic and political situations that would prevent such a utopia from appearing on Earth.

And frankly, depending on the slope of the decline, a reduction in population might not be as painful as all the doomers have been forecasting. A reduction of average TFR to 1.5 (through reproductive choices like those made in Russia) and a simultaneous decrease in average life expectancy by 5 years could do it with little fuss. I would prefer it if that happened.

On edit: If we could reduce energy use and CO2 emissions while at the same time keeping the material aspects of economic growth at zero I'd be all for it. If industrial activity increased despite the energy reductions though, I'd still object.

[txlibdem]

64. Growing food takes around 20% of the fossil fuels used in America.

The era of thousand-acre farms is ending soon. As is the era of shipping food thousands of miles.

Food will have to be grown close to where it is consumed. Perhaps it would be best if we returned back to the days of seasonally available foods - it would give us a more diverse diet.

[GliderGuider]

65. I'm not talking about energy, and I'm not talking about America.

I'm talking about declining soil fertility, falling irrigation aquifers and shifting rainfall patterns. I'm talking about the food we trawl from the seas, leaving behind benthic desert. I'm talking about spreading ocean dead zones and farmed salmon with viruses and sea lice. I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africa, northern China, India, Australia and Texas.

Look deeper.

[The2ndWheel]

68. Will have to?

That's awfully limiting for a technological society.

[txlibdem]

70. I think they will have to

Food producers will make the change due to pressure from environmental groups, consumers, and eventually the high cost of fuel.

[GliderGuider]

82. Hmm. I'm not so sure about those first two reasons.

Enviro groups have little corporate clout. The small food producers are largely regionalized already, and the big ones follow the profits. The big boysl counter leftie pressure with spin campaigns about the quality and cost of their current products and practices. Plus the large producers are already centralized in the areas with the greatest productive (and therefore profit) potential. Breaking up their operations into regional divisions holds no attraction for them.

99%+ of consumers don't give a shit where the food comes from. They look for aesthetics (tray appeal) and price.

So the large producers care mostly about profit, and the mainstream consumers care mostly about price. IMO the only thing that will prompt a large-scale shift from global to local food production is if the local food becomes cheaper. Local food producers will find a ready and growing niche market for their products, but the only way they will penetrate the mainstream is on price.

What is taking off is local food cooperatives like CSAs. They're still in a niche market as far as consumers are concerned, but they are building the production base for a shift to smaller scale, localized food production, that will play a more and more important role as global transportation systems begin to break down.

[GliderGuider]

51. I think the phrase you're looking for is "ecological manifesto".

"Ecological manifest destiny" would be what humanity has pursued in its exercise of dominion over the natural world for the last 10,000 years or so.

The principles of Deep Ecology are indeed a manifesto.

[wtmusic]

55. The term is accurate and ironic.

You are attempting to justify your own entitlement to the world's resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

[GliderGuider]

57. So that bone of contention wasn't resolved by my novella above, then?

Too bad. I'm not sure what I can do that might close the gap.

I don't feel I have any "entitlement" to the earth's resources beyond what is necessary to keep me housed, and fed. Any planetary resources I use beyond that (in terms of both sources for my needs and sinks for my wastes) I am taking from other people or other species. There is no way around that hard fact, and that gap is very much a matter of conscience. Bringing my usage back in line with the planet's capacity remains an ongoing process, just as it is for everyone in overdeveloped nations.

[kristopher]

25. U.N. Secretary-General: Renewables Can End Energy Poverty

Nuclear of any kind is the wrong approach to help the poor.

U.N. Secretary-General: Renewables Can End Energy Poverty

By Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
August 25, 2011

New Hampshire, USA -- United Nation's Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made renewable energy and its ability to lift the poorest nations to new levels of prosperity a central theme during his visit to Colorado on Wednesday.

With the Rockies as his backdrop, Ban toured the National Renewable Energy Laborary in Golden, where he inspected the flexible thin-film modules produced by Colorado-based Ascent Solar. The facility, he said, represents innovative approaches that for relatively little cost can connect remote areas to the global network of information and ideas.

If energy is the lifeblood of the world economy, Ban argues that renewable energy represents an infusion of humanity.

According to the World Bank, more than 1.4 billion people worldwide — mostly in places like rural Asia and much of Africa — do not have access to electricity. About 3 billion use wood, charcoal, coal, and dung for cooking and heating. Reaching universal access to modern energy services by 2030 will require new capital investment of up to $40 billion annually in new investments.

Ban categorized three areas of energy...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/u-n-secretary-general-renewables-can-end-energy-poverty?cmpid=WindNL-Wednesday-September7-2011


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x310272

[OnlinePoker]

41. Only if the industrialized world pays for it.

The fact the industrialized world won't even pay for the demands from its own population makes this highly unlikely anytime soon.

[kristopher]

49. Ki-moon: "let the market do what it does best"

“What we need most is strong, sustained political leadership to drive this clean energy revolution forward at the speed and scale necessary. We need to ensure that the right policy incentives and policies are in place to let the market do what it does best: innovate down the cost curve, and satisfy demand.”

Reading is fundamental


I always liked that slogan...

[OnlinePoker]

50. I read it

It doesn't mean what I said was wrong.

[kristopher]

52. If you think so...

[OnlinePoker]

53. If you don't...

...then show me the countries and policies that have been implemented that will bring these energy sources to the third world soon (and I mean within a decade). The U.S. government can't even get health care for its own citizens, let alone forking out billions for renewable energy projects in other countries. They barely support them in the U.S.

[kristopher]

54. The entire global solar industry is being driven by China - a "developing country"

Their investments have put us 20 years ahead of what would have been happening if they were not pursuing both their own energy needs AND trade benefits. Your view that the developing world can only gain prosperity in the form of hand-outs from the US smacks of a thoroughly unpleasant brand of chauvinism.

[jwirr]

13. No one said anything about what can be done for other people. That

move to happiness is inclusive. It includes a better approach to the Horn of Africa.

[cprise]

16. Hostile much?

I suppose you've missed a main point of the discussions in this forum, which is to bring overall consumption down to sustainable levels. The title does not say "The CO2 Forum". And given the established pattern (in the Kyoto Protocol, for example) of leaving undeveloped countries room for increased consumption while reducing the lions share (in developed countries), your dig at GG seems particularly inane.

[wtmusic]

19. 'Sustainable levels of consumption' is meaningless.

Sustainable for whom? For how long? Does sustainability require an environment which is in stasis?

GG's statement "Anything that enables more human and economic growth is a poor choice," would rule out "leaving undeveloped countries room for increased consumption", wouldn't it?

[GliderGuider]

21. "Sustainable levels of consumption" is anything but meaningless.

Remember that our overall Ecological Footprint is 150% of Earth's available bioresources. The key is to reduce aggregate human consumption.

Lowering the aggregate level of human consumption by 40% would bring us out of overshoot. If developed nations reduced their consumption a bit more - say by 50% - that would leave plenty of room for underdeveloped nations to improve their lot.

Since underdeveloped nations are less reliant on the global industrialization that is wrecking the planet, a protracted global economic crash could even things out. It would selectively disadvantage those at the top of the pyramid and leave room for those at the bottom to grow.

I'd much prefer to see that series of events unfold, because it gives all of life what is needed. The human pressure on non-human species is reduced, the trap of material growth that has snared the developed nations is opened, and the underdeveloped nations might find more room to prosper as the boot of industrial imperialism is lifted from their necks.

[cprise]

72. No, and you are speaking from ignorance

For someone who is supposedly a devotee to environmental issues (you hang out in this forum constantly) I will say that it is a WHOPPING ignorance.

GG's statement "Anything that enables more human and economic growth is a poor choice," would rule out "leaving undeveloped countries room for increased consumption", wouldn't it?
I already mentioned the Kyoto Protocol. Have you read any prominent authors on the subject of environmental policy?

[wtmusic]

76. You did, he didn't.

Do you read anything before you get offended? :D

[txlibdem]

23. The title of this forum is not "Reduced Energy Consumption" either

There are stupid ways to use energy. Wasting it is particularly stupid. If you drive a vehicle that uses gasoline or diesel then you are wasting 85% of the energy in that fuel == and causing pollution.

[The2ndWheel]

24. If it's cheap, it's going to get wasted

[jwirr]

12. Absolutely.

[Gregorian]

40. It IS a dilemma. I understand your post.

And I appreciate your post. I also appreciate the sentiment of the replies. It's a strange dilemma that most people don't and cannot comprehend.

I am, like all of us here, in favor of replacement of nonrenewable sources of energy generation. I am not in favor of growth.


In a side note, school is open now. I ride a bike. And today I was particularly pissed off about something as normal as people shuttling their kids to and from school in their cars. It's a quiet, pretty much dead end road. But not when school is on. Today as the people flew past me, and I took my life in my hands getting off the trail and riding on the pavement for an entire one mile run for my life, I thought about all of the gallons of gas that was used just today, just at this one school, just to shuttle kids. 500 gallons? I doubt most people do these kinds of calculations, let alone while ripping along a road on a bicycle. But my point is twofold. Responsibility to use less. And responsibility to be educated about the way a modern society operates. It should be taught in school. We should all be taught what goes into making this whole machine run. Only then will people know what they're doing when they flip on a light switch. Or jump in a car. Or give birth to yet another human being.

But when people aren't aware, and when they can't be trusted to use resources in a careful manner, it gives rise to comments and thoughts like the ones we see here. People crying out for the growth to end.

Ah, I don't know. It seems useless to blab away like this. I can't wake the dead.

[kristopher]

22. Why isn't it already a product available for purchase?

There is aggressive competition in the global nuclear market - Japan, Korea, France, Canada, USA, Russia all are fighting tooth and nail to gain market share. If thorium solves the problems of costs, safety, wastes and transfer of proliferation technologies, then why isn't it already being offered by someone wanting to sell a better mousetrap?

Post 5 claims all the bugs were worked out 50 years ago; what gives?

[macllyr]

27. No profit from combustible assemblies with LFTR

Probably in part because LFTR reactor concepts do not use expensive combustible assemblies
(in LFTRs, the fissile material is kept in a liquid form).

A large part of the profit made by AREVA comes from selling combustible :
once you have sold a nuclear powerplant (ex: EPR) to somebody, the
client has to buy combustible assemblies (ex. MOX) from you during
the 60 years of service of that EPR.

sorry for the bad English

[kristopher]

29. That is meaningless jargon.

That isn't plausible; competition dictates that if it is superior someone will build it. Areva might make money on selling fuel, but they first have to sell the reactor. If Korea can get the business with a thorium reactor then Areva sells nothing.

[txlibdem]

37. It is not meaningless jargon. Next time try to be a little more understanding

Everything the poster said is true, you just want to argue and spread FUD regarding LFTR, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

Competition dictates that a product, even a vastly inferior one, will continue to be built if it has an on-going profit stream. Capitalism 101: There is only one goal; money. A prime example is the incandescent light bulb, the internal combustion engine, coal burning for any purpose, and natural gas in any form. If Areva is stupid enough to stick with a dying technology (Uranium reactors), one whose fuel source is severely limited, instead of upgrading to LFTR power generators that can be sized to fit any need and a utility can purchase one or more for their initial needs and later on purchase additional LFTR units as their power needs increase (which they always do).

Why hasn't it been built already? ... ... ... As many posters have informed you... many, many times... it has already been built, tested, experimented with in various configurations in the 1960s. Funding for Thorium reactors was only ended because you cannot make bombs with Thorium reactors, especially the LFTR design.

[kristopher]

47. Why isn't it already a product available for purchase?

There is aggressive competition in the global nuclear market - Japan, Korea, France, Canada, USA, Russia all are fighting tooth and nail to gain market share. If thorium solves the problems of costs, safety, wastes and transfer of proliferation technologies, then why isn't it already being offered by someone wanting to sell a better mousetrap?

Post 5 claims all the bugs were worked out 50 years ago; what gives?

As you can see I didn't ask why hasn't it been built, I asked why it isn't already a product available for purchase. If, as The Thorium Clan claims, it is so superior to once through uranium fuel cycle, why has no competitor developed a marketable product built around a thorium fuel cycle?

South Africa tried to develop it for domestic use, and finally gave up.

India has been working at developing it for domestic use for more than 25 years and is about halfway there.

Your claim that "...Funding for Thorium reactors was only ended because you cannot make bombs with Thorium reactors..." is not an answer to the question of "why isn't it already a product available for purchase?" It is the reason they choose uranium in the early days of reactor development (we're talking Manhattan Project era) when the specific goal of building a reactor was to produce material for bombs.

Even then It wasn't that thorium couldn't be used, it was just that uranium was more efficient and far less deadly to handle - radiation dosing is a real problem with the technology. Additionally while thorium is a better fertile material than U238 in thermal reactors it is inferior to depleted uranium in fast reactors.

Some of the reasons it was passed over in the early days are still valid, such as the fact that the rapid buildup of radiation dosing due to high gamma radiation requires remote and automated reprocessing and heavily shielded hot cells for re-fabrication, which substantially increases the cost of the technology.

However, it is self evident that the fact it isn't as easy to make fissile material for bombs is NOT a reason that should be excluded from the marketplace for peaceful civilian nuclear power since proliferation concerns are one of the primary objections to the use of nuclear technology.

If it solved the cost, waste, safety and proliferation issues it would be already offered on the market by S. Korea or Russia or one of the other players.

[txlibdem]

61. Since we're talking about LFTR, why bring up solid fuel reactor experiments?

India was working on solid fuel Thorium reactors. I don't know the current status of their research but the recent article I posted re deaths and birth defects from coal pollution in India indicates to me that they aren't quite done.

India may have the largest deposits of Thorium of any nation so it would be ignorant of them to not put at least a little research effort into it.
... ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Commercial_nuclear_power_station

South Africa was working on the PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor) which does not use Thorium, IIRC.
... ref http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/indias-thorium-nuclear-reactor-and.html
... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRISO#TRISO_fuel
... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. OK, so… seriously…

I don’t turn to Forbes for scientific insight… and clearly this is not an article I would take as authoritative:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/

…

For the past several months, a friend of mine has been telling me about the potentially game-changing implications of an obscure (at least to me) metal named Thorium after the Norse god of thunder, Thor.

It seems like he is not the only person who believes thorium, a naturally-occurring, slightly radioactive metal discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, could provide the world with an ultra-safe, ultra-cheap source of nuclear power.

…

I have no idea whether thorium is the panacea many people claims it is likely to be, but I believe we’ll be hearing more about it in the years to come.

…

[txlibdem]

38. Sometimes an author will write a piece that is clearly meant to cause further discussion

Forbes is not known as anything but a for-profit entity, at least in my mind. This is the filter with which I view their content.

[wtmusic]

46. Turn to Forbes when you want to know where the money is going

i.e., what gets done vs. what gets thought about.

[kristopher]

48. As well as when you want to read some right wing or corporate propaganda.

[hatrack]

59. That's about the size of it . . .

Just about the last place on earth I'd go for alternative energy information, with the possible exception of Jerome Corsi's website.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. I wish I had a buck for every popular science, popular mechanics and similar

issue that had thorium hype headlines on the cover.

[OKIsItJustMe]

81. That would be somewhat better

Such an article would probably have had some actual research done, you know, more than, “My friend tells me…”

[hunter]

66. The Quinshan CANDU plant pictured can use a variety of fuels...

... including "spent" fuel from ordinary light water reactors.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=27401

[kristopher]

67. The CANDU can't compete - the reactor's functional lifespan is too short. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

74. But it's such a chipper and optimistic acronym.

[hunter]

75. The plant is already built and running.

It doesn't have to compete with anything, especially in China.

Good or bad, it looks like China or India will prove or disprove the economic viability of thorium fuel cycles.

[kristopher]

77. CANDU = CANada Deuterium Uranium

How in the heck is that going to prove thorium's worth.

But going with your statement on its face, there really isn't anything to "prove" regarding thorium.

PAY ATTENTION NOW BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT: Even if it it were to perform in all areas that rigorous analysis predict (See MIT's "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, 2010) it still can't solve the cost, proliferation, waste and safety problems.

Let me repeat that:
Even if it it were to perform in all areas that rigorous analysis predict it still can't solve the cost, proliferation, waste and safety problems.

The analysis determines that the thorium fuel cycle - relative to the once through uranium fuel cycle - to be a little better on some areas and a little worse in other areas with an overall balance favoring the uranium once through fuel cycle.

The talk of thorium is nothing more than hype designed to maintain flagging interest in an industry that is dying because renewable energy sources are BETTER.

[GliderGuider]

78. Public perception has shifted regarding nuclear power.

I agree that thorium is a last-ditch attempt to maintain a dying industry. IMO thorium won't fly for the same reason the nuclear industry itself is dying. The reason it's dying, however is not because renewables are less expensive or "better" but because people world-wide at every level of society have lost confidence in nuclear power and the industry, and in many cases are outright scared shitless of the risk. That sense of risk permeates everything related to getting power from radioactive decay. The risk awareness is what finally cut through the blanket of corporate spin and killed the nuclear industry at street level.

Renewables may replace nukes that are shut down or not built. Their cost and perceived cleanliness may not be "the" causative factor behind the nuclear industry's collapse, but it does remove its second-last leg of support. There is no longer any question that renewables are better than any other electricity supply available to us from the POV of ecological impact, and significantly better than anything nuclear regarding cost and public acceptability.

The last leg of support for the nuclear industry is the interpenetration of the top echelons of industry owners with the rest of the social "power elite". We'll have to keep working on that.

The universal replacement of nuclear power by renewables isn't a given, of course. In a lot of places coal and gas will be more compelling in the short to medium term, unfortunately.

[kristopher]

79. Your own post says that renewables ARE better

[GliderGuider]

80. Of course they are. That's not what's killing the nuclear industry, though.

You say nuclear power is "an industry that is dying because renewable energy sources are BETTER." My quibble isn't with the word "Better", it's with the word "because".

The fact that renewable energy is better than nuclear is a given. However, that fact that some renewables have been better than nuclear power for a while now has not been sufficient to kill the industry. The thrust behind the killing knife has been the public loss of trust that caused people to question the industry spin. The fact that renewables are also better than fossil fuels for generating electricity in many places is what will permit them to move in as the nuclear industry dies, but it's not what killed the industry in the first place. the thing that killed the industry is the silver lining inside the radioactive cloud from Fukushima - loss of public trust in the nuclear industry and its products.

We are very lucky that the renewable industry is now at a point where it can be presented as a viable alternative to coal as the nukes shut down. If that had not been the case, the roadmap would have been coal all the way. The loss of trust in nukes coincides with the growing awareness of pollution and climate change and the coming of age of the wind industry. That convergence makes the shift from nukes to renewables much easier.

Unfortunately, the shift from coal to renewables still has a ways to go, and gas is going to remain a player for the foreseeable future. One step at a time, though, eh?

[kristopher]

85. You are demonstrably wrong.

See Cooper and Severance for a profile of the way it is the nature of the beast and not public opinion.

You've only recently become aware of the relative strengths of nuclear vs renewables; that doesn't mean that it is new information or that it hasn't been a determining part of the global policy landscape for a lot longer. On the academic side it goes back to the 70s and on the policy side surety in global knowledge and planing goes back to 1992. The Republicans under Shrub made one last major push for nuclear but that has simply fulfilled the prophecies of energy experts not aligned with vested interests.

Severance
http://energyeconomyonline.com/Nuclear_Costs.html
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Cooper Report:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[hunter]

86. It looks to me like we'll burn fossil fuels until all big industry dies.

I was thinking about this the other day as I watched construction of the new Oakland Bay Bridge. It was built in China because the U.S. no longer has the capacity to build such a thing.

We could probably build a made-in-USA latticework, cable, and concrete structure in the style of the old, but that would defeat the purpose of the replacement. We'd do just as well strengthening the old bridge and crossing our fingers against the next big earthquake.

Climate change and population growth (which are a direct consequence of our fossil fuel use) will undercut human industry to the point of collapse, and this includes the industrial capacity required to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. We won't need an Oakland Bay bridge because there will be so few cars running that a ferry will suffice. We won't need large scale solar or wind farms because there won't be a large scale power network to connect them to.

The very best I can hope for is a high technology low energy future -- good communications network, good medicine, organic farmland, and walkable cities. That's sustainable.

If thorium works, or God forbid somebody discovers cheap fusion, then we simply postpone the collapse until a resource bottleneck more wretched than peak oil and greenhouse gases arises.

[GliderGuider]

87. That's the high probability outcome, AFAICT.

I always come back to "Liebig’s Law of the Minimum". The growth of any system is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource (the limiting factor). We’ve been pretty good so far at escaping growth limits by finding new resources to use. I expect that our luck is about to run out fairly shortly, though - there are too many resources whose scarcity could limit our growth, and many of them are showing signs of increasing scarcity.

[Kolesar]

84. ^best post of the day

:rofl: