Comments on: Energy cheaper than from coal

By: Luciano Miceli

Luciano Miceli — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:56:22 +0000

Finally an exciting option for producing energy. The time has come for taking the raps off of Thorium and get the show on the road because the need is there and with the passing of time that need will become more critical. Our energy independence is already at stake, so lets get moving, put pressure on the politicians and educate the general population on how we will benefit by it. For one I do not believe the global warmists, they’re wasting huge sums of hard earned money that would be far better spent on getting the ball rolling and start building thorium power plants and increase related research. Thorium will have the last laugh unless we shoot ourselves in the foot and competing economies leave us eating their dust.

By: Scottar

Scottar — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:36 +0000

Global Warming ended in 1998. I’m for any viable energy alternative that is cost effective and cleaner than coal or oil. Nuclear is on that list. It’s getting past the scaremongering of the 70′s and getting the right engineering, technology and design that is the problem.

Investing in ENRON technologies like wind and solar farms that are driven more by subsidies then real profits is a crime as well as a scam.

LFTR sounds even better than the High Temperature Gas Reactors but I don’t believe in a cookie cutter approach. A reasonable amount of diversification would be prudent as you just don’t know what future breakthroughs will occur, even with renewables.

By: Matt Musson

Matt Musson — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:39:46 +0000

Most people who are against Nuclear energy have an emmotional arguement against it. Rarely can you overcome emmotions with facts. Ask any guy who fights with his girlfriend.

That is why I believe Thorium has a better chance of being accepted by the general population. When the tree huggers freak out you can point out that all their objections are against uranium reactors. But, Thorium is different.

I believe Thorium and Sub-critical uranium reactors have the best chance of being accepted by the public. (And, government regulators.)

By: DocForesight

DocForesight — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:41:01 +0000

Robert,
Thank you for your response. First, I am not a nuclear physicist – merely involved in the health care field – but have come to recognize the vast superiority of nuclear power to meet the needs of most societies. Your graph gives a visual representation to what many of us understand intuitively.

From Rod Adams’ blog I ran across this site with a number of excellent articles: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com
While they don’t mention Thorium, they strongly advocate for nuclear power plants to pull the 2+ billion people who don’t have basic electricity.

Keep up the good work, sir.

By: Robert Hargraves

Robert Hargraves — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 01:53:42 +0000

DocForesight and Dave Archibald,

My postal address is 7 Cuttings Corner, Hanover NH 03755.

Doc is right in that LFTR power can be justified even without considering global warming. 24,000 deaths/year in the US are due to coal-plant sourced small particulates in the air we breath — hundreds of thousands in China — over a million worldwide.

Energy cheaper than from coal also has a substantial economic productivity benefit, including advancing developing nations’ lifestyles to included lower birthrates, reducing global competition for finite global resources.

By: Robert Hargraves

Robert Hargraves — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 01:48:12 +0000

Dave Narby,
The thorium consumption illustrated in your links are very small. Although there is plenty in the US, demand is so low that it’s not mined here. Consumption is shown as negative in the last year, evidencing a high noise-to-signal ratio in the data — because the market is so small.

By: DocForesight

DocForesight — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:54:12 +0000

Along the lines of David Archibald, what is the average pH of the oceans now and what does “acidifying” 70% of the earth’s surface take?

Seems to me, climate alarmism is unbecoming of nuclear power advocates. LFTR and all others can stand on their own merits as far superior to any other base-load generator.

By: Dave Narby

Dave Narby — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:47:49 +0000

Hey what’s up with this?

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/thorium.pdf

Thorium imports jumped in 2006, along with the price!

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/thorium.pdf

By: Alex P.

Alex P. — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:04:37 +0000

However, if we have to follow the graphite moderated reactors route, then I’ d prefer to prioritize the quite simple and quick to develop denatured MSR configuration,
http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/May/Too_Good_Leave_Shelf.cfm
it’s not a “real” breeder, only a reactor with a very high conversio ratio, but has anyway pratically all the advantages of a thorium breeder, including a very low transuranic waste production (in the range of only few tens of grams per GWyear)

By: Alex P.

Alex P. — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:42:28 +0000

Actually, I guessed that Grenoble group choiced a very fast spectrum LFTR (even if not like a sodium fast breeder), I rather prefer an intermediate-energy spectrum solution (epithermal) like the tube on tube suggested by David LeBlanc, where the fissile start-up is no more than a few tonnes per GWe and avoids the use of graphite eventually discharged as waste, but to be honest I don’t know all details and drawbacks in terms of feasibility and engineering complexity