Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 22, 2018 5:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 09, 2014 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
I'm probably not alone in being convinced that we're soon going to need to switch to an alternative to burning billions of tons of fossil fuels each year to supply the energy needs of over 7 billion people now on the planet. The costs of business as usual will likely soon exceed the benefits.

Is anyone working on a comprehensive plan that uses nuclear power as a base for a new energy and economic model?

One idea I had to pay for part of the R&D is the fee and dividend system proposed by James Hansen at GISS. Instead of a carbon tax that would put money into general government funds where it would soon be spent on other things, with a fee and dividend system the money collected at the source from fossil fuel producers would go directly into individuals accounts where they could spend it on their choice of energy suppliers.

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

Quote:
Fee and dividend is a revenue-neutral mechanism designed to impose a progressive fee on carbon emissions and return the fee to the public, which has been proposed as an alternative method of reduction in fossil fuel use to cap and trade, carbon tax or emissions trading mechanisms. This mechanism is designed to maintain economic function while encouraging transition to a sustainable energy economy while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions.


This could be modified so that part of the taxes collected could be made available as low interest loans to companies developing realistic alternative energy production to fossil fuels(which basically means nuclear power).

Some could also be made available to companies working on technology that can work in synchrony with the nuclear sector, such as synthetic fuel producers, electric vehicle makers, organizations working on electric highways, etc...

Looking at the science it should seem obvious that we need an overarching plan to replace something as foundational as fossil fuel use, by presenting a comprehensive plan we could also present the public at large with a clear alternative to what is almost certainly an outdated method of powering our societies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 09, 2014 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
Maybe that would help our billion tons of coal being burnt. However, what effect does US tax law have on the fossil fuels being consumed in other lands?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/china-coal-idUSL3N0K90H720140107

Article says that China burns almost four times what the US does. I'll bet they don't have the complex controls to lower NOX, SO2 and Mercury either. I guess it is a big problem keeping the lights on for 1/4 of the world's population.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 09, 2014 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
DougC wrote:
I'm probably not alone in being convinced that we're soon going to need to switch to an alternative to burning billions of tons of fossil fuels each year to supply the energy needs of over 7 billion people now on the planet. The costs of business as usual will likely soon exceed the benefits.


Costs? to who? to the coal company? to the electricty providers? to the petroleum industry? to the natural gas industry? to the gasoline retailers?

Costs exceed the benefits to who? The politicians getting funding from fossil fuel lobby? The lower class that has energy subsidies from the government? the rich that own the stocks that are the fossil fuel industry?

Only the middle class really stands to benefit from reduced energy costs, and most of them are scared out of their minds about atoms and electrons. "Taxes" of any sort will be passed onto the middle class. "high" energy costs will be passed onto the middle class. 1000 dollars a month for gasoline would crush the middle class, but it wont mean a thing to a millionaire making 100k per month, in fact the millionare might like having less traffic on the roads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class = sizes of the classes

313 total usa
upper class (5%) = 15 million people dont care if they pay $1000 (100 gallons @ $10 = 450 miles about per month = 15 miles per day) per month in gasoline really they make 100k per month
80% middle class = 240 million middle class people pay huge amount of their discretionary income on energy.
15% poor = dont have a car wont effect them much use subsidized public transportation



nuclear will hugely help the middle class, but they are too brainwashed/oppressed by fossil energy to do anything about it.




DougC wrote:

Is anyone working on a comprehensive plan that uses nuclear power as a base for a new energy and economic model?

One idea I had to pay for part of the R&D is the fee and dividend system proposed by James Hansen at GISS. Instead of a carbon tax that would put money into general government funds where it would soon be spent on other things, with a fee and dividend system the money collected at the source from fossil fuel producers would go directly into individuals accounts where they could spend it on their choice of energy suppliers.

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

Quote:
Fee and dividend is a revenue-neutral mechanism designed to impose a progressive fee on carbon emissions and return the fee to the public, which has been proposed as an alternative method of reduction in fossil fuel use to cap and trade, carbon tax or emissions trading mechanisms. This mechanism is designed to maintain economic function while encouraging transition to a sustainable energy economy while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions.


This could be modified so that part of the taxes collected could be made available as low interest loans to companies developing realistic alternative energy production to fossil fuels(which basically means nuclear power).

Some could also be made available to companies working on technology that can work in synchrony with the nuclear sector, such as synthetic fuel producers, electric vehicle makers, organizations working on electric highways, etc...

Looking at the science it should seem obvious that we need an overarching plan to replace something as foundational as fossil fuel use, by presenting a comprehensive plan we could also present the public at large with a clear alternative to what is almost certainly an outdated method of powering our societies.


No way USA government will ever do a carbon tax in your lifetime. End of discussion really. A politician knows carbon tax = political resignation.

Nuclear designs from 30 years ago can replace all of the coal plants and natural gas plants in the world today, if fossil fuel lobby got out of the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 6:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
I disagree. Low energy helps everyone. Low energy helps lower income people get jobs and pay out less to pay their personal bill and stop sucking on the teat of the government. Low energy helps the rich in that the government puts out less to support the poor and other government expenses. Such as building roads. The rich also benefit because the economy is working better and thus the currency goes up. As far as a carbon tax goes, you will have little control over where and to who's buddy the government gives this. They will likely use it to get reelected or build more windmills.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Low energy costs help those on lowest incomes the most, since they tend to be the ones expending huge amounts of their meagre income on fuel of various types.

For instance we now have widespread reports of families in Britain that have to chose whether to eat or to run the heating for the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 22, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Germany
We need another Elon Musk who is interested in LIFTRs. :lol:
Another question. Is the development speed of a functional commercial LIFTR dependent on money or more on approval?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Well there are still large scale development programme to be run, so it is a combination of needed R&D work, money and approvals.

CANDUs are probably the best option if you want a rapid rollout as soon as possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Costs? to who? to the coal company? to the electricty providers? to the petroleum industry? to the natural gas industry? to the gasoline retailer?

Costs exceed the benefits to who? The politicians getting funding from fossil fuel lobby? The lower class that has energy subsidies from the government? the rich that own the stocks that are the fossil fuel industry?


To everybody, the effects of driving the climate system into a more chaotic state by constantly pushing the CO2 and other GHGs up is already costing us billions of dollars a year. Rising sea levels are going to make coastal property less and less valuable in coming decades and then worthless as it's submerged. Massive droughts drive up food costs and make food and water security much more vulnerable. How do you even estimate the costs of an entire system in flux to an endpoint we can't even determine right now. Let's just assume that the cost is far more than we can afford and the only rational alternative is large scale nuclear power. Not doing anything is probably going to crash the ecological and economic systems we depend on and trying to make do with less capable sources of power, like wind and solar, is probably going to cause an economic crash.

Quote:
Only the middle class really stands to benefit from reduced energy costs, and most of them are scared out of their minds about atoms and electrons. "Taxes" of any sort will be passed onto the middle class. "high" energy costs will be passed onto the middle class. 1000 dollars a month for gasoline would crush the middle class, but it wont mean a thing to a millionaire making 100k per month, in fact the millionare might like having less traffic on the roads.


I don't think that's accurate, in the long term the consequences of business as usual are so significant that it doesn't matter what place in the socio-economic spectrum someone is, everyone will be negatively impacted.

That's the point with a fee and dividend system, you start out with a modest tax collected at the source of the fossil fuel production and pass that directly on to the consumer. The tax is escalated at the same time that alternatives are developed making energy from coal, oil, and eventually natural gas less and less competitive. The money collected goes directly into the accounts of consumers, not general revenues where it would simply disappear.

You could also cleave off a portion for building the new energy infrastructure with low interest loans to the new providers.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class = sizes of the classes

313 total usa
upper class (5%) = 15 million people dont care if they pay $1000 (100 gallons @ $10 = 450 miles about per month = 15 miles per day) per month in gasoline really they make 100k per month
80% middle class = 240 million middle class people pay huge amount of their discretionary income on energy.
15% poor = dont have a car wont effect them much use subsidized public transportation


Making this about some sort of class warfare is just going to make it impossible to get anything done, in the end we're all in the same boat, the rich will take massive hits unless they invest in the new energy and associated sectors. What something like this will probably result in is an entirely new economic set-up that will allow innovation and expansion at a rate not possible today with how tied up everything is with the deeply entrenched fossil fuel sector being the main economic driver.

Quote:
nuclear will hugely help the middle class, but they are too brainwashed/oppressed by fossil energy to do anything about it.


It will help everyone and with the cheap and virtually limitless energy we could supply if we actually did transition to a nuclear based model and it would completely alter the present socio-economic paradigm. We wouldn't be talking about the haves and have nots when wealth becomes a much more relative term. It's the mostly constantly imposed market system with fossil fuels at the base that is driving a lot of inequity and ecological degradation currently, the whole point of something like sustainable, responsible nuclear power is to break this deadlock I think.

Quote:
No way USA government will ever do a carbon tax in your lifetime. End of discussion really. A politician knows carbon tax = political resignation.


don't present it as a tax on people, show how it benefits them as it replaces coal, oil and gas in the end giving them affordable, almost limitless and ecologically responsible energy. In the end I'm betting people actually would like to have a world to pass on, that is looking less and less likely now when you look at the results of continuously driving the Earth's radiative balance into a much more energetic state. It geo-engineering in the wrong direction.

Quote:
Nuclear designs from 30 years ago can replace all of the coal plants and natural gas plants in the world today, if fossil fuel lobby got out of the way.


The idea is to move on from the past, why rely on old designs when we could do so much more with ongoing development, that kind of thinking has allowed the fossil fuel sector to keep us over a barrel for decades. Nuclear power production as a main source of energy production really is revolutionary, it should be presented that way.


Last edited by DougC on Apr 10, 2014 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
E Ireland wrote:
Well there are still large scale development programme to be run, so it is a combination of needed R&D work, money and approvals.

CANDUs are probably the best option if you want a rapid rollout as soon as possible.


Sure, whatever is available now, plus factor in what's in development with the idea that at some point around mid century most power will be coming from splitting atoms, not combusting ancient fossil life.

To do something this massive requires planning the infrastructure to build the new plants, to mine the fuel, provide the funds to capitalize, build the transportation and associated systems that now depend largely on oil, coal or gas for operation and more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
Ida-Russkie wrote:
I disagree. Low energy helps everyone. Low energy helps lower income people get jobs and pay out less to pay their personal bill and stop sucking on the teat of the government. Low energy helps the rich in that the government puts out less to support the poor and other government expenses. Such as building roads. The rich also benefit because the economy is working better and thus the currency goes up. As far as a carbon tax goes, you will have little control over where and to who's buddy the government gives this. They will likely use it to get reelected or build more windmills.


I am glad you were able to explain the entire economy and how everyone benefits from low energy prices in a single paragraph.

Get real. Either you are lying to me, or your view of the world is that of someone I rarely speak to.

We all agree nuclear can be cheaper than natural gas and coal. Why isn't it already widespread available? Because fossil fuel industry ( which comprises 85% of the energy industry does not want, and will not allow nuclear to grow. Money is invested in fossil fuels, and NOBODY WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL ALLOW NUCLEAR TO COMPETE WITH THEIR PRIZED FOSSIL FUEL INVESTMENTS.
[img]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... timate.jpg[/img]

*cue a moron who will who will make me defend my 85% of **energy** industry is fossil fuel by pointing out that **electricty** is made of nuclear power. If you can't figure out the difference between the energy industry and the electricity industry, then I don't need to talk or listen to you.

(I would like to add that the 85% of the energy industry would gladly support solar/wind over nuclear because fossil fuel knows they can easily compete against solar and wind, who wont work at night or without wind)&&&cue someone who will make me do a post to explain what i just wrote, or better yet cue a post that is going to tell me bull about how solar and wind are rapidly catching up, while completely ignoring the billions of government handouts)


Last edited by NicholasJanssen on Apr 10, 2014 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
To illustrate how low energy prices benefit everyone.

Lets have a thought experiment - the conditions are that cheap nuclear generation of whatever type has made essentially unlimited electricity available for one US cent per kWh.

What effects would this have on society and the economy?

I am pretty sure they are rather drastic and benefit the poor especially as prices of transport and goods will drop like a stone.
Everyone would live like the rich do now, just as everyone lives better today than a King of the Medieval period did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
E Ireland wrote:
Low energy costs help those on lowest incomes the most, since they tend to be the ones expending huge amounts of their meagre income on fuel of various types.

For instance we now have widespread reports of families in Britain that have to chose whether to eat or to run the heating for the day.


What part of energy subsidies didn't you understand? What part of UK government doesn't care about the uk poor people, and will do anything to keep them in their place by taking cheap nuclear energy off the market?

What part of UK poor people might benefit from nuclear, if they weren't brainwashed/threatened by the atoms, radiations, neutrons, gamma rays, alpha particles? I am sure given a chance UK poor people would gladly vote for a ban on "cancerous eletro magnetic radiation" completely!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 265
E Ireland wrote:
To illustrate how low energy prices benefit everyone.

Lets have a thought experiment - the conditions are that cheap nuclear generation of whatever type has made essentially unlimited electricity available for one US cent per kWh.

What effects would this have on society and the economy?

I am pretty sure they are rather drastic and benefit the poor especially as prices of transport and goods will drop like a stone.
Everyone would live like the rich do now, just as everyone lives better today than a King of the Medieval period did.


You think the people heavily invested in fossil energy will ever allow any of that to happen?

Do you think the hard working starving familes has a single chance to possibly disrupt the billions of dollars invested in fossil energy?

Do you think the people with billions of dollars invested in fossil energy will somehow allow nuclear to turn their money into nothing by providing energy at half the current cost??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
NicholasJanssen wrote:
Ida-Russkie wrote:


We all agree nuclear can be cheaper than natural gas and coal. Why isn't it already widespread available? Because fossil fuel industry ( which comprises 95% of the energy industry does not want, and will not allow nuclear to grow. Money is invested in fossil fuels, and NOBODY WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL ALLOW NUCLEAR TO COMPETE WITH THEIR PRIZED FOSSIL FUEL INVESTMENTS.


A lot of that has only been made possible by a disinformation campaign taken straight from the tobacco industry using some of the same key players, the science simply isn't behind the continued use of fossil fuels for much longer and the physical effects on the environment are already becoming impossible to deny. The end result is probably going to be court battles that the fossil fuel sector can't win in the long term because you can only deny reality for so long.

Therefore we almost certainly do need some sort of plan for how we're going to get the 500,000 ton gorilla off our backs and that means planning to build hundreds of large and possibly thousands of smaller nuclear reactors in the coming decades and this isn't something that should be attempted ad hoc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A comprehensive plan
PostPosted: Apr 10, 2014 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Small nuclear reactors are never going to achieve what we need to achieve.

Only through the mass production of gigawatt range reactors do we have a chance.
CANDUs escape the production bottlenecks that hold back rapid rollout of traditional LWR designs.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group