Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jul 21, 2017 3:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 26, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: Alabama
How Trump views wind power: fundamentally unreliable. Not compatible with his personality type nor that of his supporters.

Trump zings clean energy zealots: 'I don't want to just hope the wind blows...'

Quote:
President Trump on Wednesday night rejected green energy advocates who say only certain kinds of energy can be used to fuel the country and said taking their advice would put U.S. economic growth at risk. "I don't want to just hope the wind blows to light up your homes and your factory," Trump said at a campaign-style rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.


Strength. Reliability. These are simple concepts that Trump emphasizes. His appointees will follow suit, just as Obama's appointees did to his belief that wind was wonderful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 26, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 345
Location: Florida
Agreed: Strength and reliability. Sidebar: Kirk, will you post on the recent Flibe Energy Delft talks?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 26, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1440
Unfortunately I very much doubt that will lead to any expansion in nuclear construction.

More likely, CCGT, CCGT, CCGT and more CCGT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: Alabama
House bill cancels most of Trump's clean energy cuts

Quote:
The bill would give the Energy Department $37.56 billion, which is $209 million below the fiscal 2017 spending level and $3.65 billion above President Trump's budget request.

Nuclear energy also got a big bump up from Trump's proposed budget, receiving nearly $1 billion for research and development and other programs. The amount was nearly $300 million more than Trump's request.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 29, 2017 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: Alabama
Coal, nuclear vie for supremacy in key Energy Department study

Quote:
The report, launched in April by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, is aimed at identifying government regulations and policies that the agency says improperly favor renewable energy over traditional fuels like coal and nuclear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 30, 2017 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 345
Location: Florida
Quote:
Energy Secretary Rick Perry [reported that] government regulations and policies . . . improperly favor renewable energy over traditional fuels like coal and nuclear.
Wow, Kirk. And how long have you and the thorium group been harping on this? I hope Flibe Energy gets what it needs to SHOW and demonstrate what had been known since 1970. Using the plutonium LFTR-49 to breed U-233 from thorium for the pure LFTR-23 thorium burner urgently needs that U-233 be declared NOT source material, as would be prudent for the U.S. economy. That would take some courage and leadership. Maybe Secretary Rick is up for it? Or are Texans chickens? I could write a very short story on cowardice. And the LNT appears to be wrong—seems. The doctors need to fix that? LFTR-23 has the potential to be medical isotope factory. But DOE policies and regulations and U.S. nuclear laws stand in the way of a superior technology? Plus REEs production is utterly arrested allowing China to dominate in such strategic materials markets.

I found the latest on Jim Kennedy by Victoria Bruce:

Sellout: How Washington Gave Away America's Technological Soul, and One Man's Fight to Bring It Home
Quote:
The story of one citizen's fight to preserve a US stake in the future of clean energy and the elements essential to high tech industries and national defense.

American technological prowess used to be unrivaled. But because of globalization, and with the blessing of the U.S. government, once proprietary materials, components and technologies are increasingly commercialized outside the U.S. Nowhere is this more dangerous than in China's monopoly of rare earth elements-materials that are essential for for nearly all modern consumer goods, gadgets and weapons systems.

Jim Kennedy is a retired securities portfolio manager who bought a bankrupt mining operation. The mine was rich in rare earth elements, but he soon discovered that China owned the entire global supply and manufacturing chain. Worse, no one in the federal government cared. Dismayed by this discovery, Jim made a plan to restore America's rare earth industry. His plan also allowed technology companies to manufacture rare earth dependent technologies in the United States again and develop safe, clean nuclear energy. For years, Jim lobbied Congress, the Pentagon, the White House Office of Science and Technology, and traveled the globe to gain support. Exhausted, down hundreds of thousands of dollars, and with his wife at her wits' end, at the start of 2017, Jim sat on the edge of victory, held his breath and bet it all that his government would finally do the right thing.

Like Beth Macy's Factory Man, this is the story of one man's efforts to stem the dehumanizing tide of globalization and Washington's reckless inaction. Jim's is a fight we need to join.
Sidebar, thinking in terms of hot molten salt solvent systems—brand new ("just for you")—and viewing the latest on ITER, 500 MWth by 2030? after 20 billion and CERN support or partnership?—twenty billion. Wow. That machine is a monster. I'll bet a LFTR-49/23 NPP would have been less?—or comparable allowing for first-mover costs?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 30, 2017 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Cleveland, OH
Perhaps Sec. Perry can help with the ANS' Grand Challenges ( http://www.ans.org/challenges/radiation/ ), specifically the Low-Dose Radiation Challenge:

Quote:
Challenge: Establish the scientific basis for modern low-dose radiation regulation.

How: Establish the scientific basis and guidelines for the health effects of low-dose radiation and replace the current Linear-No-Threshold approach with a modern, science-backed model for nuclear radiation safety.

Background: The Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model is based on high dose rate nuclear weapons data. Its application to nuclear reactor, medial, and irradiation applications is tenuous at best. New evidence in radiation and chemical toxicity fields is suggesting that LNT models are likely overly conservative, and the way in which they are used makes this conservatism inordinately expensive. While LNT is very straightforward to regulate, scientific evidence from the past several decades has indicated that low doses of radiation do not pose risk of cancer in a linear fashion, as is well-established among higher doses of radiation.

Today, the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) has in many cases lost the "reasonable" aspect, as nuclear power plants micromanage every milliroentgen (mR) of worker dose in order to meet metrics of dose reduction. Unnecessary fear of low doses of radiation has adversely impacted safety and enabled cumulative costs to build up within the U.S. nuclear energy industry such that building and maintaining plants is now overly cumbersome and expensive.

If the LNT model can be replaced with a modern, scientifically defensible model, underpinned by the latest microbiology research methods (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc.), we can achieve both higher levels of safety while reducing unnecessary operations and waste disposal costs. One approach may be to establish a generally-accepted common measure of risk and a de minimis “threshold of regulatory concern,” socialized, and incorporated into relevant standards and regulation. Ultimately, this effort could enable broader, more cost-effective application of nuclear technologies, which in turn would provide significant additional benefits in cleaner air, less carbon, and more lives saved from deadly diseases.


This would free up Th & REEs and in generally kill off the strangling regulations due to LNT and ALARA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 01, 2017 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 337
Positive news from the Trump administration:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Trump-heralds-golden-era-for-US-energy-3006177.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 03, 2017 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3240
Location: Alabama
Oak Ridge National Laboratory could face massive layoffs under Trump budget request

Quote:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory could face a workforce reduction of up to 33 percent should the president's budget request be approved as is, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a subcommittee hearing Wednesday. ORNL employs about 4,800 people through its contractor, UT-Batelle. As many as 1,600 of those could lose their jobs if the Office of Science bore the president's proposed 17 percent cut, according to Feinstein's office. Several subcontractors also work at the lab and may be affected by a large cut. "ORNL has enjoyed strong public support for many years," ORNL spokesman David Keim said. "That ebbs and flows and changes based on the priorities and the economic situation of the country. "ORNL staff continue to focus on their work as the budget makes its way through Congress," Keim said, adding that the lab would not speculate on the consequences of potential budget cuts. Outside of the U.S. nuclear complex, Department of Energy labs employ about 29,000 people. "This budget would lay off 6,000 people, or 23 percent of the employees," Feinstein told Energy Secretary Rick Perry at the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development hearing. At his visit to ORNL in May, Perry said, "The administration's goal to create jobs and wealth, I will suggest to you, are centered in the Department of Energy and the things that we have the capability of dealing with." Perry reiterated the statement Wednesday, calling national labs "the future innovation of this country," but ultimately defended the president's request. “This budget proposal makes some difficult choices, but it’s paramount that we execute our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayers,” Perry told the subcommittee. Feinstein said that sentiment is not reflected in the budget, which also would eliminate ARPA-E, the agency that funds high-risk clean energy research projects, and cut up to 70 percent from the four applied energy programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Reliability, Nuclear Energy and Fossil Energy.

Trimming lab operations

Operations at ORNL would take a hit, too, including run times at the site's Spallation Neutron Source and High Flux Isotope Reactor. Both neutron sources are in high demand around the world, with one in three researchers looking for beam time actually able to get it. Scientists have used the two neutron sources for a range of scientific applications, from creating better computer storage and batteries to designing better cancer drugs, and even the discovery of a new element on the periodic table. ORNL is under a Department of Energy review to upgrade the Spallation Neutron Source to meet the ever-increasing demand, but proposed cuts to facility upgrades could halt progress on that end, too. "In the president’s budget request there are separate pots for personnel, operations and facility upgrades," explained Adam Russell, a spokesman for Feinstein's office. "Money can’t be moved between the different pots. All three would take a hit under the president’s budget." Feinstein told Perry that the research done at national labs provides "irreplaceable tools" that make American companies competitive and improve people's lives. "The message of this budget is clear; those capabilities and their outcomes are not important to whoever put this budget together or they would not have done it," she said. "It also tells students that scientific research is no longer important to the United States. Imagine the irreversible harm we'll do to future industries if we can't attract students to STEM fields today."

Drafting realistic alternatives

Few legislators have expressed all-out support for Trump's budget request. “Congress will write the budget and set the spending priorities," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, previously said. Where we find good ideas in the president’s budget, we will use them. A House appropriations subcommittee advanced its mark-up of the president's budget Wednesday, which is a bit more generous with the Department of Energy, though some programs would still face deep cuts. Under the House version, ARPA-E would still be eliminated and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would see its funding cut by half, rather than the president's proposed 70 percent. The Office of Science would not receive a budget cut in the House version. The Senate appropriations bill is still a work in progress. When it is completed, the House and the Senate will confer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

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