Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 18, 2018 1:30 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Alabama
Ernest Moniz, MIT physicist, nominated as energy secretary

Image

MIT Faculty: Ernest J. Moniz

Wikipedia: Ernest Moniz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2013 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
At the very least he sees a role for nuclear in his "all of the above" position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2013 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
IMO -

Nominally a step forward, since Dr. Moniz has a lot of publications on nuclear issues. I have not seen any indication that he is even aware that liquid fuel cycles are even possible. The papers I have read sound like DoE policy down the line. Supports LWR and to an extent HTGR development. But he was on the BRC so I know he has seen the faces of some EfT regulars, and is at least aware of the Th-U233 fuel cycle.

1978 report to the APS on nuclear fuel cycle options and waste management

2009 report on the future of nuclear power


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2013 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
Cthorm wrote:
IMO -

Nominally a step forward, since Dr. Moniz has a lot of publications on nuclear issues. I have not seen any indication that he is even aware that liquid fuel cycles are even possible. The papers I have read sound like DoE policy down the line. Supports LWR and to an extent HTGR development. But he was on the BRC so I know he has seen the faces of some EfT regulars, and is at least aware of the Th-U233 fuel cycle.

1978 report to the APS on nuclear fuel cycle options and waste management

2009 report on the future of nuclear power


He certainly knows Dr. Peterson (served on the same BRC) who certainly is aware of LFTR. Hopefully he will support Dr. Peterson's projects which are big steps toward LFTR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2013 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
He served as under secretary under Bill Clinton. What role if any did he play, if any, in shutting down EBR II during the Clinton administration?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2013 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Alabama
I think with Moniz at Energy at MacFarlane at the NRC, both alumni of the Blue Ribbon Commission, that it's a pretty safe bet that BRC recommendations are going to be implemented.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2013 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
I think with Moniz at Energy at MacFarlane at the NRC, both alumni of the Blue Ribbon Commission, that it's a pretty safe bet that BRC recommendations are going to be implemented.


Which doesn't say much at all, as the BRC recommendations were very disappointing, preferring obvious facts over innovative vision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
I think with Moniz at Energy at MacFarlane at the NRC, both alumni of the Blue Ribbon Commission, that it's a pretty safe bet that BRC recommendations are going to be implemented.


Well I hope NRC and DOE will both support Dr. Peterson's projects which are strong step toward LFTR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2013 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 169
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
Cyril R wrote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
I think with Moniz at Energy at MacFarlane at the NRC, both alumni of the Blue Ribbon Commission, that it's a pretty safe bet that BRC recommendations are going to be implemented.


Which doesn't say much at all, as the BRC recommendations were very disappointing, preferring obvious facts over innovative vision.


Yes, BRC recommendations could have been more to our liking. However, put a little perspective on it. 4-5yrs ago when I first heard about LFTR and talked to Kirk the objective was to get LFTR concepts "on the table" ( i.e. part of the discussion). If you consider what China and India are now doing and the progress within the US gov ( the collective knowledge and exposure to LFTR by Dr. Peterson, Moniz (DOE) and MacFarlane (NRC)) the progress is astounding.

Take a bow Kirk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 3:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
charlesH wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
I think with Moniz at Energy at MacFarlane at the NRC, both alumni of the Blue Ribbon Commission, that it's a pretty safe bet that BRC recommendations are going to be implemented.


Which doesn't say much at all, as the BRC recommendations were very disappointing, preferring obvious facts over innovative vision.


Yes, BRC recommendations could have been more to our liking. However, put a little perspective on it. 4-5yrs ago when I first heard about LFTR and talked to Kirk the objective was to get LFTR concepts "on the table" ( i.e. part of the discussion). If you consider what China and India are now doing and the progress within the US gov ( the collective knowledge and exposure to LFTR by Dr. Peterson, Moniz (DOE) and MacFarlane (NRC)) the progress is astounding.

Take a bow Kirk.


Agreed that the concept has been more popularized and mainstreamed. But that has almost nothing to do with the Blue Ribbon Commission. This commission could have suggested a novel way out of the waste issue, for example a hard big move on pyroprocessing and Gen IV. In stead they suggested we go at it again with a repository, taking the whole political merry-go round once more. Repositories don't work politically and also economically because they don't have a value. Repositories are not supported by industry because they cost money and deliver nothing in return for industry. Repositories are not supported by politicians because politicans can get very popular by opposing repositories, making them look like local heroes. Yucca showed this. And moreover, repositories do not reduce the dose to the public compared to dry cask storage. It's completely pointless. Suggesting a new repository siting process is stupid policy, and I was very disappointed in this recommendation from the BRC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 07, 2013 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3065
The primary recommendation I saw from that report was to create interim repositories (dry cask storage) that were more centralized to reduce the congestion in the storage pools, reduce security costs at closed reactor sites, and to remove the legal liability to federal government has now for collecting fees for dealing with the spent fuel (by 1996 if I recall right) and then failing to do so. I agree this is a pretty modest agenda but I'd imagine it was pretty difficult to get agreement inside such a committee.

It also argued pretty well that the fees collected for spent fuel should be spent on spent fuel processing rather than going into the general fund.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 08, 2013 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
Moniz is Obama's new man for energy

This sounds good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 17, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Alabama
Celebrating the homecoming of Ernest Moniz

Image

My, my, he has aged...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 20, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Alabama
Trump administration's 'anti-scientific statements' alarm ex-energy secretary

Quote:
“Some of the statements being made about the science, I might say by non-scientists, are really disturbing,” he said, “because, as I said, the evidence is clearly there for taking prudent steps.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 23, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Alabama
Ernest Moniz named co-chair and CEO of Nuclear Threat Initiative


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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