Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jul 17, 2018 10:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jan 19, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:


I read the statement and saw no mention of building more nuclear reactors. There's a lot of mention of keeping nuclear materials safe, cleaning up waste, and so forth, but no mention of more nuclear power. You did emphasize before that the NRC licenses reactors, not the DOE. As I understand it the DOE does set the rules for licensing and a licensing board in the NRC issues the license within those rules, so the DOE does have a large part to play in this, no?

It is possible that Gov. Perry chose to leave that out of his statement to avoid the potential political minefield that might create. I'd also think that anyone that sees the destruction of nuclear waste as an issue would understand that neutron bombardment of these elements in a nuclear reactor is an excellent means to do that.

Secretary of Energy has effective ownership of a stockpile of U-233, if confirmed I hope that then Secretary Perry will see that this valuable asset is not destroyed as planned.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 19, 2017 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Rick Perry's past is good for his future as Energy secretary

Rick Perry dances through hearing for energy secretary, using a two-step of charm and chops

Perry vows solution to Yucca Mountain impasse

Energy Secretary nominee Perry says he’ll fight cuts proposed by Trump transition team

Rick Perry expresses ‘regret’ for pledging to abolish Energy Department

Why Does The Energy Department Control The Nuclear Arsenal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2017 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Rick Perry's confirmation hearing in three minutes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Well, we have a new president. Trump was inaugurated and gave a fiery pro-America speech that is probably causing fits in Beijing and Mexico City right now.

Rick Perry was very visible during the inauguration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 24, 2017 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Committee to vote on Zinke, Perry nominations Tuesday

Mr. Trump, the Department of Energy has a fake name. It's time to make things right


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 25, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Does anyone know more about this? Kirk?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/congr ... ower-bill/

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 30, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
13 of Trump’s Cabinet Nominees Await Senate Approval, Leaving Agencies Without a Leader


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 31, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Overnight Energy: Senate begins moving Trump's energy, environment team

Quote:
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources will vote on two Trump administration nominees on Tuesday, pushing ahead the confirmation process for President Trump's energy and environment team. The committee will consider Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) to be Interior secretary and Rick Perry to be secretary of Energy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 01, 2017 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Perry’s Energy nomination advanced by committee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 01, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
The good thing about Perry & Trump is that they are apt to be willing to thumb their noses at the rest of the world's nuclear experts & politicians if they can see a good business case for the USA developing a genuinely sustainable nuclear fuel cycle. Current civilian reactor rules & regulations have rendered that impossible.

If we're/they're willing to look beyond the immediate future, making that case shouldn't be tough to do.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Trump will burn Obama's energy regulations

Quote:
It's not that Trump is considering his own clean energy agenda, a less strict emissions-reduction strategy. He is not replacing climate priorities, but eliminating them.

"Look, the Climate Action Plan is dead, period," said Tom Pyle, Trump's former transition chief for the Energy Department. "That means whatever aspects of the Climate Action Plan at DOE are going to phase out and disappear."

The Climate Action Plan was rolled out by Obama in 2013 and done through executive authority rather than waiting for Congress. It ordered agencies to issue regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

It's "a good thing" that the climate action agenda is removed "because it overlaid the entire mission of the agency," Pyle said. "When I was reviewing the transition documents that we got, almost every single department, or whatever you call them, had to 'implement the objectives of the president's Climate Action Plan.'"

It was "everywhere," Pyle said, "even the labs had a piece of it because that's where the president's priority was and that's where the money flowed."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Trump will burn Obama's energy regulations

Quote:
.... had to 'implement the objectives of the president's Climate Action Plan.'"

It was "everywhere," Pyle said, "even the labs had a piece of it because that's where the president's priority was and that's where the money flowed."


Here's my latest rewrite of "Nuclear Power's Killer APPs" - it might receive a better reception from the US climate science establishment's technical experts now than it did before.

I'd really appreciate getting your/anyone's commnets/advice ASAP (please be specific) - it's going out soon.


Attachments:
killer apps current version.docx [1.2 MiB]
Downloaded 51 times

_________________
Darryl Siemer
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Well 36,000GWe (the capacity suggested) using CANDUs would consume something like 1.2million tonnes of fuel per year (1.7% 32GWd/t), but that would still only consume ~3.4 million tonnes of natural uranium.
And seawater uranium could keep that up for a millenium or more - even excluding rocks in equilibrium with the seabed.
And at that point some sort of zirconium enrichment plant and supercritical carbon dioxide cycles will cut the uranium cost significantly [probably 25% reduction at least is achievable].

In other words - breeders and seawater uranium are in a race. Whichever comes first renders the other almost pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 07, 2017 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Wrong thread for discussing Darryl's paper, this thread is a political discussion of Trump's energy secretary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 08, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 21, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 308
Location: idaho falls
OK, I've posted the current version of "killer apps" to ""another way that MSRs could save the world" - let's carry on any discussion of it there.

I'll probably be adding a little shootdown of the LNT hypothesis to its Safety Issues section before it's resubmitted. Bob Hargraves has just put together a nice little ppt presentation that gives me enough ammo. Let's talk about that sort of stuff rather than arguing back and forth about how we could go about getting enough NU out of 3 ppb seawater to generate 30000 GWe worth of CANDU power. To me anyway, that's about as fantastic as is Jacobson's WWS hypothesis.

_________________
Darryl Siemer


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group