Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 24, 2018 3:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 30, 2015 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: May 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
From his blog


"Several blatant falsehoods about nuclear power were repeated in that session, including claims
that (1) nuclear power has a large carbon footprint (it is actually as low as that of renewables,
and it is even lower with advanced generation nuclear power), (2) nuclear power is a slow way to
decarbonize (in fact all of the fastest decarbonizations in history occurred via nuclear power), (3)
nuclear power gets inordinate subsidies (in fact renewable subsidies dwarf nuclear subsidies).
However, it is wrong to pit renewables against nuclear power. We need all hands on deck.
Carbon-fee-and-dividend provides a way to avoid contentious discussion and allow competition.
It is unfortunate for young people in the United States that the economic benefits of advanced
generation nuclear will likely accrue elsewhere, given government policies seemingly designed
to kill nuclear power.
b I have felt the sting of a gross asymmetry in the renewable/nuclear energy
discussion, as proponents of a role for nuclear power support renewable energies, but proponents
of renewables unleash a torrent of criticism of anyone advocating a role for nuclear power.
c

I limit this discussion with a final point: all energy sources impact the environment. The effects
of old generation nuclear power can be greatly reduced with new technology. The impacts of
renewable energies may not be acceptable to all environmentalists. Chart 2, for example, shows
the renewables proposed by Jacobson et al. (2015).
d
Will each of the 50 states actually approve
these installations? What about the new power lines criss-crossing the nation? Not included in
this chart is the “water” portion of this proposed renewable power installation: it is equivalent to
50 Hoover dams, one for each state; although the proposition is to do this with a larger number
of smaller dams, it is not clear that these dams would be welcomed by all environmentalists."


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/ ... epless.pdf

From his presentation

"An Example of Technology
Thorium-Powered Molten Salt Reactor
Operates at Atmospheric Pressure
Factory or Shipyard Construction
Uses Most Nuclear Fuel, Not <1%
Reduced Waste, Shorter Half-Life
Passively Safe Operation
Not Well-Suited for Weapons Material"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20151222_Beijing.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 03, 2016 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
It seems as nuclear lobbyism in the US coupled nuclear successful to the "climate change*" or "Global Warming" or "climate hoax". This might give nuclear some tail wind within the next couple of years. The question is what happens when the "Climate Change" disappears from media and the political agenda?

I got the impression that nuclear does not fight for cost competitiveness with coal and gas but base the justification on "climate Change". From my point of view it is a very risky strategy.



*"Climate Change" is a poor theory that is pushed in the public of the old industrial countries by a very strong media and political pressure. Main actors behind the "climate change" are Greenpeace, WWF and Sierra Club


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 03, 2016 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3431
Location: Alabama
My central problem with coupling nuclear advocacy with CO2 reduction is entirely political:

Half the population doesn't believe that CO2 emissions constitute a problem, and the other half of the population doesn't accept nuclear energy as a solution to the CO2 emission problem.

How do you push nuclear energy as the strategy for CO2 reduction in this scenario?

That dawg don't hunt...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2016 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cleveland, OH
I think the stronger case for nuclear power is fighting pollution, and leave it as an "exercise for the reader" whether or not CO2 is a pollutant. Nuclear power advocates should always be slamming the obvious pollution from coal and natural gas - mercury, radon, sulfates, NOx, and fly ash for example. Advocates should demand fossil fuel power plants be held to the same radiation standards as nuclear power plants. And also advocate that coal plants have a "long-term disposal strategy" for their fly ash. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2016 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 04, 2015 8:12 pm
Posts: 3
Definatly switching the game from CO2 + global warming justification to one based on reinvigorating depressed economies with safer non polluting technologies. The best place to build these new LFTR is where mothballed or decommissioned coal plants are. Already a hazmat cleanup site, The steam turbines have a lot of inherent value and are usually located at grid transmission points. If possible make the reactors smaller and more efficient.
This will offset a lot of the negative politics around nuclear and fund decaying coal economies by new works programs. Excavating the reactor site and pouring ferron-crete sounds like a similar skill set to coal miners and coal plant operators. Keep our steel mills busy too.
Only educating the political leaders , especially in the coal dependent states will make this happen. So non political does not work.
Coal will no longer be competitive investment for generating for new load. i.e Germany or Great Britain.
A startup should be able to get one of the mothballed coal plants on the cheap. Government grants are available for advanced nuclear reactors.
That would be a hell of startup incubator , have several small reactors all build small stage steam generators to feed a central turbine or electric feed the transformer depending on the technology.
I am sure Kentucky or West Virginia would be very doable considering how desperate they are to replace the closed coal infrastructure and unemployed workforce( grants galore).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2016 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Dear Jim,

in 1983 I was living in Aachen (Germany, coal area). Each weekend I had to clean the windows of my car. In 1988 I came back and the air was clean. The reason were not the large power plants with electro filters and flue gas washing but the miners got 7 to coal each per year for free. Many 1000 of small family home heatings without any filters made the pollution (similar in China). In 1988 the mine was closed but the power plant was still in operation (imported coal).

in Germany we got the discussion about mercury from the US. Greenpeace and other communists press on US standards for mercury emissions. I had a look on the figures. The total global emissions of mercury are about 7000 to/year 2/3 from nature. German coal power plants contribute to the global emissions with 7to/year in total. It is green hoax like many others.

All in All: Don`t replace the climate hoax by another green hoax!!!

From my point of view economic is the key for a nuclear revival


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2016 10:53 pm 
Online

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 130
' ..Greenpeace and other communists press on US standards for mercury emissions. I had a look on the figures. The total global emissions of mercury are about 7000 to/year 2/3 from nature...'
I read that most of the ' natural' emissions are actually re-emissions from past human activities, mostly from coal burning but also metals smelting, concrete making etc. Only 10% is actual primordial mercury. That makes sense if you figure that coal beds had a couple of hundred million years to act as mercury filters, and we've burnt that in a few hundred.
'..Don`t replace the climate hoax by another green hoax!!!'
Would that be communist hoaxes like the ones that got lead out of petrol, and are getting chlorofluorocarbons out of the Antarctic stratosphere? ( We owe both of those to Thomas Midgely, who personified the best argument yet for adding a good dash of government and inter-government regulation to your unfettered capitalist development.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2016 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
In Europe, most people, and almost all decision makers, accept the science behind global warming and the need to cut CO2 emissions. It's the way to get through to officials and the public.

Practice often falls short. In Germany in 2015, compared to 2014, the burning of coal to generate electricity has increased (238 TWh ->243 TWh), by almost exactly the amount that nuclear output has fallen (92 -> 87). This is despite a large rise in the generation of electricity from wind (56 -> 84.5 TWh).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2016 7:44 am 
Online

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 130
The Ipsos Mori poll in 2014 asked people in twenty countries about their attitudes to climate change, among other subjects. To the question, ' To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement - The climate change we are currently seeing is largely the result of human activities ? - a majority in all countries agreed, but in the US the percentage agreeing was only 54%, in the UK and Australia 64%, and going on up to China at 93%.
http://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/environment.html
If the figures for nuclear power were that good, we'd be in business.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2016 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cleveland, OH
@HolgerNarrog,

My basic premise is that there are plenty of non-CO2 reasons to dislike burning fossil fuels for electricity vs. nuclear power, and to *not* hitch nuclear power to worries about CO2. You may be unconcerned with 1 of the 5 items I listed off the top of my head (and you may even be correct) - yet there are still plenty of reasons to be unhappy with burning fossil fuels for electricity and still avoid propagating green hoaxes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2016 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
If CAGW is not a real thing there is little reason to pursue nuclear, there are natural gas and gassifiable coal resources sufficient for many tens of millenia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2016 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Oct 28, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 256
One argument for nuclear power plant (especially simplified MSRs) is that they use a lot less material (concrete, steel, metals, chemicals, ..) and land compared to renewables and coal. It is the most environmentally friendly source of power (except maybe for gas if climate change is not due to human activities because of uranium mining; but if we have seawater uranium or breeders even gas is lot more environmentally worst I think).

Nuclear is already the power source with the least deaths per MWh if I don't mistaken.

If we can beat the other sources on cost we have strong arguments for nuclear power even if CAGW is false and coal becomes clean.

The arguments for clean air, no pollution and no CO2 are still strong for nuclear.

Quote:
there are natural gas and gassifiable coal resources sufficient for many tens of millenia


At one point I guess that the cost of this gas will be too high to make gas competitive against nuclear. And not all nations on earth will have access to domestically sources of gas. Nuclear will be prefered in some places.

Nuclear is already competitive with gas in some places and can be competitive everywhere with simplified designs and less hysteria on safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 05, 2016 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Hi Fab,

this is exactly what I have in mind. The costs of licensing, certification of suppliers, testing, documentation kills the economic advantage of nuclear vs. coal and gas. I don`t think that other reactor concepts would help.

It`s the economic stupid (Bill Clinton)

Holger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 07, 2016 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Dear Jon,

concerning the IPSOS MORI poll I was living a couple of years in Middle East. I made the experience that poeple did concentrate on their family and business and did not care very much about things outside. Most of the poeple I met in the arabian countries, china and taiwan did not made up their minds about such topics as "climate change". They would try to answer such a question in a way the interviewer is happy with.

That means the results for some of the countries are very questionable.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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