Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 15, 2018 11:45 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: May 20, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 17, 2016 12:15 pm
Posts: 17
So I'm up in DC interning now and have a meeting with Director Pierpoint from the DOE to talk about facilitating nuclear energy and new reactor design policy on the 9th.
I also attended a 4 hour nuclear energy event yesterday on the hill with several discussion panels. I'll create a summary and find a link to the video (it was live streamed so there should be one) in the next few days.
So prior to walking into this meeting what are the challenges that Flibe/LFTR is facing specifically and that need addressed? I've only just begun delving into the issues so please feel free to name things that are big and small. I know that there are posts that have parts of this but a consolidated list would be helpful and more current.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to making a difference for Flibe.

Also H.R. 2028 is a new first step for nuclear, not specific to LFTR but as a whole and in the right direction. There are some more bills that I'm digging up from recent votes that show a unified front to advance nuclear energy.

Link to H.R. 2028 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... ll/2028?q={%22search%22%3A[%22nuclear%22]}&resultIndex=11


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2016 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Great news, Alec!

I gotta applaud you for promoting the Flibe Energy LFTR design, my favorite. You didn't mention these other relevant and important congressional actions besides H.R. 2028:

H.R.4084 - Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act - One capability could be a DOE agreement with Flibe Energy to build the prototype at a DOE site? And:

H.R.4979 - Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016 with the Senate version S.2795 - Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. (H.R. 4979 on the energy from thorium forum)

This important legislation is designed to expand the NRC to a better licensing process for advanced designs. Have you talked with Former NRC Commissioner (1998-2007), Jeff Merrifield, Chairman, Nuclear Infrastructure Council—Advanced Reactor Task Force?

NIC
1317 F St NW #350
Washington, DC 20535

_________________
"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: May 20, 2016 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Alec Herbert wrote:
So prior to walking into this meeting what are the challenges that Flibe/LFTR is facing specifically and that need addressed? I've only just begun delving into the issues so please feel free to name things that are big and small. I know that there are posts that have parts of this but a consolidated list would be helpful and more current.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to making a difference for Flibe.

I join with Alec Herbert in supporting the development, licensing, and commercial deployment of the Flibe Energy LFTR. Alec, you're obviously writing to Kirk in the open here. Beg pardon for interjecting. Others here who support the Flibe Energy design (myself) are unsolicited assistants by permission.

Alec, June 9th, right? So, by then I hope you familiarize yourself with the congressional actions I posted here, I would think. Meantime, this thread will be interesting to watch. Thanks are due to you as well.

_________________
"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: May 20, 2016 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 17, 2016 12:15 pm
Posts: 17
Thank you Mr. Meyer and it is an open forum to any and all from their perspectives. Fresh sets of eyes if you will.

Thank you as well for listing the other new legislation that has been added, I was aware of others but wanted to get the idea for feedback from this group down prior to loosing the time to do so.

The bills that you mention are indeed designed to help facilitate nuclear and specifically H.R. 4084 in new tech. There is a caveat to it from what I've been told thus far by DOE personnel, some of whom I met with recently at said energy event. The people wanting to use these new facilities need to have a clear plan laid out to show the steps from research to final product. Timelines and expectations being key elements but nobody has done this so far and they have been asking for a while. The first company to do so would gain some leverage with the DOE from what I've gathered.

June 9th is correct for the meeting, it is right after the 2nd Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors Workshop on June 7th and 8th. Which I will be attending as well.

My office is very good with letting me pursue this avenue and has offered to help draft legislation on it as well. Nuclear energy has great support in my office and non-proliferation is a hot topic that Flibe/LFTR will be able to address. So the goal is to get a draft done prior to the end of the summer and continue to work with the office to get a proposal submitted shortly after if not at the end as well.

Lastly I am exploring ways to get other disciplines involved in nuclear, agriculture, medicine, etc since LFTR will be able to directly impact them and indirectly impact others. If we can get a broad base on our side then things will advance much smoother.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21, 2016 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Alec, please call me Tim. I was heartened by the "fresh eyes" comment.

Thank you for posting these details. Wow! What great work you're doing. There's time before the 9th to post the summary you asked for. Good news on the 7th & 8th workshop. The timing is good.
Alec Herbert wrote:
The bills that you mention are indeed designed to help facilitate nuclear and specifically H.R. 4084 in new tech. There is a caveat to it from what I've been told thus far by DOE personnel, some of whom I met with recently at said energy event. The people wanting to use these new facilities need to have a clear plan laid out to show the steps from research to final product. Timelines and expectations being key elements but nobody has done this so far and they have been asking for a while. The first company to do so would gain some leverage with the DOE from what I've gathered.

Alec, please read S. 2795 and then read H.R. 4979 that were introduced months AFTER H.R. 4084. Thank you. People here who are better to judge these bills are not discussing them on this forum even though they are written in the spirit to solve the very regulatory problems these developers have been complaining about. Each bill had hearings that are on C-SPAN. I posted those links and the bills on this forum. Search on, e.g. "4979."

If the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2016 (The Act) were law, that very process DOE personnel are telling you seems to be as far as I can tell from the H.R. 4979 language and more specifically the S. 2795 bill, would be supported because The Act authorizes a developer like Flibe Energy to qualify for the funds to pay for the "clear plan laid out to show the steps from research to final product . . . timelines and expectations."

Do you know that the Flibe Energy LFTR design was assessed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) October 2015? It is authored by Andrew Sowder, Ph.D., CHP, Principal Technical Leader, Advanced Nuclear Technology. A concerned citizen-former-quasi-scientist sold on the Flibe Energy LFTR goals, I cannot know the nature of the relationship between the Flibe Energy founder, CEO, CTO, Kirk Sorensen and Dr. Sowder. I think it's very good and that's enough for me. Search on "EPRI" here on the forum. You'll see the links. I have a copy of the report. It appears to be more than enough to qualify under The Act (if it passes and gets signed into law) for an NRC licensing plan under the new rules. With a Flibe Energy LFTR licensing plan, the law allows for Flibe Energy to avail itself of DOE resources (GAIN).
Alec Herbert wrote:
My office is very good with letting me pursue this avenue and has offered to help draft legislation on it as well.
Well then, Alec, that is very good. But first examine the language of S. 2795 and H.R. 4979 with respect to what you're learning in D.C. and look for improvements. H.R. 4979 is moving through committee and has already been marked up.

Again, do you know Jeff Merrifield? I urge you to look into his efforts at NIC. He appears to be a champion of the cause. He gave testimony at both hearings!

Alec Herbert wrote:
Nuclear energy has great support in my office and non-proliferation is a hot topic that Flibe/LFTR will be able to address. So the goal is to get a draft done prior to the end of the summer and continue to work with the office to get a proposal submitted shortly after if not at the end as well.
That's very good news. Non-proliferation qualification, again, will be part of the Flibe Energy LFTR NRC licensing plan under The Act . . . once it passes and gets signed into law!
Alec Herbert wrote:
Lastly I am exploring ways to get other disciplines involved in nuclear, agriculture, medicine, etc since LFTR will be able to directly impact them and indirectly impact others. If we can get a broad base on our side then things will advance much smoother.
Agreed! The only new design that has an integral chemical processing system is the Flibe Energy LFTR. Period. The only one. That functionality is exactly the capability that no other nuclear power machine gives. It has better potential for fission products management and recovery of valuable rare elements and medical isotopes. No other advanced design is aiming at such a magnificent capability.

I think Kirk has been working very hard for years to connect with influential people. His LFTR design is much more than a safe, versatile power machine. It's about a moral injustice that was committed against peaceful people looking to improve their happy lives, and the advancement of safe nuclear science: collateral damage of the Cold War; mutually assured destruction between the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Communism versus capitalism and the threat of nuclear war. The Flibe Energy LFTR prototype will become a monument to justice, peace, and prosperity. The U.S. DOE must get it's head straight. Defense against nuclear war. Got that. What are we fighting for?

The light water reactor (LWR) was designed and selected first for national defense; nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers. The ORNL MSBR was useful for peaceful, safe nuclear energy and did not meet national defense objectives. We couldn't afford both developmental programs. We established the LWR protocol. That was forty years ago!

- Molten salt reactors cannot have a "meltdown" because they are already molten. If reactivity attempts run away, the fluid naturally loses reactivity and the machine self-corrects.

- Fluid allows for automatic emergency dump to decay takes configured to not allow reactivity and thus have acquired the reputation of "walk away safe" since the 1965-1969 MSRE run at ORNL.

- They can't explode and spread radioactive materials into the environment because unlike the LWR fleet, they are not under pressure! The crucial LRW pressure containment structure is not needed for a Flibe Energy LFTR.

- MSRs run hotter and therefore are more efficient.

- Flibe Energy is designed to run on the pure thorium fuel cycle with full utilization of the fuel. LWR uranium fuel cycle runs on the rare 0.7% of natural U-235 fissile (only one in nature) that requires the expensive enrichment process that is the weapons pathway (proliferation); this leads to the once-through utilization ending in highly radioactive, long-lived fuel assembly storage. Most of the thorium gets consumed in the Flibe Energy LFTR; thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than natural uranium.

- Thorium fertility is superior to uranium-238 (99.3% of natural uranium) fertility because thorium burning results in orders of magnitude less formation of long-lived transuranics.

- The Flibe Energy chemical processing system provides for many beneficial options.

- Gaseous fission products in the Flibe Energy LFTR are helium-sparged to its off-gas system to not only keep the reactor running but to process those materials for sale.

- The advantages are a long list and the disadvantages are very few and those have solutions.

This is why, in my mind, there is something called The Alvin Weinberg Foundation.

_________________
"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


Last edited by Tim Meyer on Jun 28, 2016 5:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21, 2016 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Alec Herbert wrote:
Lastly I am exploring ways to get other disciplines involved in nuclear, agriculture, medicine, etc since LFTR will be able to directly impact them and indirectly impact others. If we can get a broad base on our side then things will advance much smoother.
Alec, this is a very good strategy. I mentioned medical isotopes, right? Have you heard of targeted alpha therapy? It is showing promise as a cure to some difficult cancers. A Flibe Energy LFTR can supply the isotope, and other medicinally vital isotopes.

Agriculture. I believe American crop lands have been showing depletion in sulfur. I live in Florida (Gulf coast). Florida phosphate is very big for our nation's growers. Unfortunately, the byproduct of ore processing here, the phosphogypsum (calcium sulphate), has entrained in it the naturally occurring radioactive radium decay product of uranium, and the uranium itself together with even more thorium that are naturally found together with rare earths as well. Florida phosphate cannot therefore use the phosphogypsum so they stack it. We have 25 now and growing by millions of tons a year. The stacks are so big, you can see them from the ISS!

In theory, given that Duke Energy is already licensed by the U.S. NRC to run Crystal River 3 (recently decommissioned; cracking containment structure too expensive to repair; something a Flibe Energy LFTR does not need) for storing their fuel assemblies for a very long time, Duke could benefit from a partnership with Flibe Energy as part of the Flibe Energy licensing plan under the new NRC rules as enacted with support from DOE, to build the FE LFTR at CR3 in partnership with the Florida phosphate companies to power the processing of the phosphogypsum stacks into needed ammonium sulphate for American growers and exports (Florida ports) where the radioactive content is captured to then fuel the FE LFTRs at CR3! Get it? Floridians would be delighted to clear those stacks. The phosphate companies could sell their stacks to the ag markets. There is a lot of years of material here. Duke could leverage a better power technology that has strong utility for the distant future. Flibe Energy can establish its design and further the vital technology. And there's a lot of great careers and jobs in all this. There are enough wins in this scenario to cause a Republican front-runner to "choke." (Notice, I did not invoke "The Name.")

If such a large, comprehensive project were completed, the virtues of the molten salt design would be so stark, people would wonder why it had not been developed sooner.

I believe part of that story is that nuclear physics is not required in the national secondary education requirements. It's easy for me who graduated college twice in chemistry. I can understand the wisdom and the hazards. Most people are afraid. A natural gas stove is excellent for cooking and very efficient. An electric stove? But certainly to keep the frig running, the air conditioner, lights and power. They cannot know without some science education the notion of energy density. They think wind and solar will be enough to get away from the nuclear monster. Nuclear is not a monster. The fact is that it's safety record is unassailable next to all other energy technologies.

The Petroleum Institute is spending millions on a barrage of TV ad campaigns (Vote4Energy.org) that run every day on the hour. The Nuclear Energy Institute is not.

Water. The basis of life. Water supply and management is an energy issue. Oceanic desal for fresh water powered by thorium. That by itself ought to be enough to inspire true leaders to stop and refocus efforts. Period.

_________________
"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: May 23, 2016 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 17, 2016 12:15 pm
Posts: 17
I’m trying Tim, lots of people to meet and introduce this stuff to. Trying to be on top of all of the latest happenings, need to make sure I have all of the cards that I can when I meet these people.

I have not talked to Jeff Merrifield or heard his name yet, but I shall look into him. If you are able to make an introduction that would be terrific! I am new to this sector but am working to fix that while educating those around me. I don’t have the political knowledge that some have but the workings of LFTR I am very familiar with, I’ve read over the EPRI report and been following Flibe/LFTR formany years. It is actually a large reason I decided to go the nuclear engineering route. I was very pleased when he was able to give a talk at GA Tech on March 14th of this year.

I’ve attached the summary of what was talked about last week and some of the information repeats through the various panels and speakers, I left that in intentionally to show the joint mentality behind the issue of Nuclear Energy Economy.

I am aware of the alpha therapy aspect the LFTR can provide and am using that to get some people interested and merge the disciplines.

A friend of mine is creating a “Nuclear For Dummies” style site to help educate people, I don’t recall if I’ve mentioned this before but I feel that it will go a long way to educating people. Sweden actually gives tours of their facilities and 1 in 3 adults have visited them. People in the US still think that the steam from the cooling towers is radioactive.

By the end of the week I will have the first set of appointments set up with various staffers to discuss nuclear energy as a whole as well as Flibe/LFTR. Trying to get a rough price point of what Flibe/LFTR needs to go from now to fully operational for these people since that is the language they speak. I know it will be cheaper than conventional based upon what Kirk has said so far in various talks but cheaper isn’t a quantity. 2-3B, 4-6B, 5-10B, something like that would be perfect.

Edit: Added the file I meant to add earlier.


Attachments:
Nuclear Energy Summary.docx [22.3 KiB]
Downloaded 147 times


Last edited by Alec Herbert on May 23, 2016 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23, 2016 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Alec Herbert wrote:
I’m trying Tim, lots of people to meet . . .
Absolutely, Alec! Let me not hinder you in any way. I hope what I post here is helpful to you.
Alec Herbert wrote:
By the end of the week I will have the first set of appointments set up with various staffers to discuss nuclear energy as a whole as well as Flibe/LFTR. Trying to get a rough price point of what Flibe/LFTR needs to go from now to fully operational for these people since that is the language they speak. I know it will be cheaper than conventional based upon what Kirk has said so far in various talks but cheaper isn’t a quantity. 2-3B, 4-6B, 5-10B, something like that would be perfect.

You have a legitimate reason to get Kirk on the phone, dude. I can only hope he knows that price point. It's not a fair question but Kirk must have a number. For one thing, a first-of-its-kind is going to have a one-time development and licensing structural cost and other initial costs to establish the machine. Copies won't have those costs. This is way beyond my pay grade. And since my pay is zero, you get the picture.

Alec Herbert wrote:
I have not talked to Jeff Merrifield or heard his name yet, but I shall look into him. If you are able to make an introduction that would be terrific!
No, Alec. I don't know our former NRC Commissioner, Jeff Merrifield. You may cross paths with him and introduce yourself, yes? NIC is on F Street. I gave you the links. I wish I knew if Kirk Sorensen knows him and has talked with him about his LFTR design. Jeff seems to be a champion for advanced designs and the pro-nuclear community needs champions. Like Kirk! (And Lars Jorgensen, ThorCon, and Dr. David LeBlanc, Terrestrial Energy, and many other saints like John Kutsch and Jim Kennedy and the amazingly talented and knowledgeable contributors to this forum . . . oh alright, Dr. Leslie Dewan, Transatomic Power, Cambridge, MA, a hugely ambitious MSR design that would be a serious boon.)

Alec Herbert wrote:
. . . but the workings of LFTR I am very familiar with, I’ve read over the EPRI report and been following Flibe/LFTR for many years. It is actually a large reason I decided to go the nuclear engineering route. I was very pleased when he was able to give a talk at GA Tech on March 14th of this year.
And you didn't talk with Kirk? I would think he would want to have your direct contact now that you're working in D.C.?

Good news! You have read the EPRI LFTR report. I'm glad Kirk and his design has inspired you to your present success. I am unable at this time to join you in direct participation. I'm working remote for free. The thorium option is bigger than big. People need to wake up. I'm studying on my own without a penny of support and looking for opportunities to promote the technology option.

Alec Herbert wrote:
I am aware of the alpha therapy aspect the LFTR can provide and am using that to get some people interested and merge the disciplines.
Excellent!

Alec Herbert wrote:
I’ve attached the summary of what was talked about last week and some of the information repeats through the various panels and speakers, I left that in intentionally to show the joint mentality behind the issue of Nuclear Energy Economy
Alec, I downloaded your attachment just now. Thanks. It's the summit conference agenda! Yea!

Alec Herbert wrote:
A friend of mine is creating a “Nuclear For Dummies” style site to help educate people, I don’t recall if I’ve mentioned this before but I feel that it will go a long way to educating people. Sweden actually gives tours of their facilities and 1 in 3 adults have visited them. People in the US still think that the steam from the cooling towers is radioactive.

The Good Reactor features the heavy hitters mentioned above. I recommend you click on the link, if you don't already know. The film is in editing still and to be released soon? I'm eager to see it. I wrote to the filmmakers, Frankie and Des, to back them and they were grateful. I told them it'd be great if they could get this film out soon because of the legislation moving through Congress; it must educate the electorate and mobilize support for these bills that will improve the regulatory process.

The “Nuclear for Dummies” is an interesting idea. Let it be successful. The Swedish public tours of nuclear facilities was mentioned at the May 19, 2016, “Improving the Economics of America’s Nuclear Power Plants” DOE nuclear summit last Thursday in D.C. Evidently, you attended! The four-hour webcast is here (requires streaming capability in the browser).

Several panelists mentioned the need for public education to understand the idea of energy density, the nuclear safety record compared to all energy technologies, and especially how the playing field is not level for nuclear in the absence of a price on carbon energy for its environmental impacts. Other legislation will be needed for that. It's very good you were there. Your minutes are excellent!

_________________
"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


Last edited by Tim Meyer on May 23, 2016 7:42 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23, 2016 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 17, 2016 12:15 pm
Posts: 17
Edited the last post to have the document, forgot to hit upload. It's a summary of what was said and by the speakers of panels. Then the overall that I gave to my office.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23, 2016 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
I caught that! This is really good work you are doing, Alec.

I want to add feelings about items from the summit. The "mentality" you mentioned hit me hard. I could never do and be as the people who are making it happen. I can spread the word and write letters to my representatives. These nuclear industry and energy people are heroes and heroines, our representatives and nuclear officials, they're all amazing. And you, too, Mr. Herbert.

Maybe I qualify for "fresh eyes"? I believe if people do right, States, Congress, the President, FERC, DOE, NRC, the energy playing field will get leveled out to re-invigorate nuclear. Our light water fleet is numero uno. It has to be.

But advanced reactor development is on the verge of leaping into the public consciousness. I am eager to witness the release of The Good Reactor.

What if the new reactor designs and especially the Flibe Energy LFTR enter into the public discourse? Can people process the complexities? I studied science but had to invest some time into learning about this energy technology option.

I dread to think that industry and officials not using the thorium option in a molten salt reactor is such an embarrassment . . . can't be. The goals of the Flibe Energy design are actually the way nuclear was originally supposed to be done for domestic energy.

DOE's main mission is our national defense as it should be. NRC's mission is about to be expanded. Thorium is a very serious issue. It has the potential to put all competition to bed. Is it why a few hundred Ph.D.s in D.C. don't speak the "t" word? Odd too if you know anything about Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg. Strange. These folks know better. I must be missing something really important. Dr. Seaborg was a chemist. I pretended to be a chemist once.

In Thorium Research in the Manhattan Project Era, May 2014, Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Seaborg is said to have remarked many years later that this was a "fifty-quadrillion-dollar discovery."
That was then. Today, maybe $150Q. That's $150Q more than what I have in my checking account.

_________________
"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: May 23, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
The nuclear power plant cooling towers? The steam radioactive? So there's some work to do. Jobs. That's good. There's a lot of college grads looking for work. Our national priorities are temporarily under construction. We'll get it.

_________________
"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: May 23, 2016 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
If I may, Alec:
In the minutes summary, Alec Herbert wrote:
Overall support for nuclear continuing to be an option is strong. The things holding it back are cost, policy, and knowledge about it.

- Cost: Other sources have tax breaks which reduce their cost; nuclear doesn’t even though it is the cleanest energy source. There needs to be some form of quantifying the cost of carbon to make it further competitive. The constantly [changing] requirements of plants is what increases the costs and delays construction.

- Policy – The new nuclear designs are being held back by the NRC regulations since many have components that they do not have regulations for and are thus unusable. These designs are more efficient, even safer, create less waste, and bring more than just energy to the table. Nearly everything we use today started out as theory, the first nuclear plant was theory and ran perfectly as planned.

- Knowledge – The steam rising from cooling towers is NOT radioactive. One of two plants, for the world, that create lifesaving medical isotopes is closing in 10 months. There is no backup plan, people will die. But there are designs that we could be building that will fix this and create more to save more lives than before.

The cost of nuclear is currently higher than natural gas; this won’t always be the case and is foolish to believe otherwise. We have seen the cost of power fluctuate wildly over time, but the cost from nuclear remained constant. The fuel is abundant and long lasting, new designs for nuclear use different sources that are even more abundant and energy dense while being more efficient. If we were to get behind nuclear power and help streamline its development and overall energy reform we would see the next industrial revolution.
Let us all first contemplate together that after national defense, energy systems are vital to water systems and every system for our daily lives. Get energy right first. Everything else will flourish and prosper after.

Urgent? Well, actually, most urgent. If Alvin Weinberg's molten salt thorium burner was suspended due to Cold War, well, that's over now. Let the States, Congress, the President explain to working tax payers that an energy project that had been suspended for national defense priorities is now ready to be resumed and deployed.

I don't know how the chemist who discovered U-233 calculated its value at thousands of trillions of dollars. But we've honored him before. Let's do so again.

His new element burned in a particular molten salt reactor design can be safer, done cleaner, more completely, efficiently, is denser and more compact, where fission products supply strategic and medicinal materials markets and the few offending short-lived emitters are isolated for geologic storage; the Faustian bargain of modern living until fusion arrives.

Tax incentives and adjustments or offsets with Congressional appropriations can be a catalyst to the best domestic nuclear power reactor burning the best nuclear fuel envisioned by the pioneer scientists and officials of the nuclear age suspended due to WG Pu-239 for national defense. At the bottom of Pandora's box is hope.

If Flibe Energy gets licensed to deploy it's LFTR, it's performance will rapidly become unbeatable. Carbon cannot touch it. Chemical energy by nature is millions of times weaker than the power of the atomic nucleus.

Natural primordial uranium is (practically?) the only trace source of a naturally occurring fissile isotope in the midst of the predominant fertile element hence the seniority of uranium in the nuclear age. But though primordial nature has only one fissile, it has two that are fertile. This fact is a fundamental point official and industry people ought to frequently restate in these efforts to educate the public in moving forward. Responsible citizens on this vital issue ought to read the original research by Kirk F. Sorensen "Thorium Research in the Manhattan Project Era" published in May 2014 by UT-Knoxville.

Realistic plans would be to use co-located nuclear power makeup so that carbon burners can afford to employ 100% carbon capture using sCO2 turbos (the Allam Cycle) and stay in business long enough to pay for the transition of those workers to the new jobs.

New nuclear can power the many chemical products synthesized from coal, oil, gas, biomass; processes amenable to direct thermal that is the highest efficiency for optimum fuel utilization. New nuclear can power a great many things, direct thermal oceanic desal with the processing of the sea salt for its plethora of valuable elements and especially carbonate capture, titanic water management projects, irrigation of arid lands grows biomass and sinks atmospheric carbon, secondary materials reclamation and other environmental reclamation projects, a host of useful and environmentally responsible processes.

Why? Because nuclear energy is the most dense and most powerful. The fossil energy age has done a great job and deserves its honors. Today is the time to declare our transition to the inevitable. It's time. Dr. Seaborg is right. The money is plentiful. The cash is stashed in the nucleus of the thorium atom.

New nuclear is coming, the Thorium Age.

Or are the world's greatest living physicists at CERN and in cosmology about to discover something more fundamental about mass, dark matter, energy, enigmatical dark energy, spacetime, which allows for the emergence of a new way of life for peace-loving people everywhere?

_________________
"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: May 26, 2016 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 17, 2016 12:15 pm
Posts: 17
Tim Meyer wrote:
You have a legitimate reason to get Kirk on the phone, dude. I can only hope he knows that price point. It's not a fair question but Kirk must have a number. For one thing, a first-of-its-kind is going to have a one-time development and licensing structural cost and other initial costs to establish the machine. Copies won't have those costs. This is way beyond my pay grade. And since my pay is zero, you get the picture.

He and I have been in contact, my reason for posting in a more public forum was to get some discussion going and more of those sets of fresh eyes. I know it is unfair, but LFTR is being squandered and I’m going to do my best to rectify that. First time startup will cost more but that is part of what the DOE is trying to address by creating that site for testing of reactors.

Tim Meyer wrote:
And you didn't talk with Kirk? I would think he would want to have your direct contact now that you're working in D.C.?

I was the one that coordinated with him to come speak. I have a research team that is focused on LFTR but we are working on some background topics prior to working more closely with Kirk. Right now GA Tech has DOD funding to work on FHRs. So we are trying to collaborate on that in order to get the modeling experience and access to the computer banks at tech to increase our modeling capabilities for LFTR.

Tim Meyer wrote:
What if the new reactor designs and especially the Flibe Energy LFTR enter into the public discourse? Can people process the complexities? I studied science but had to invest some time into learning about this energy technology option.

This is part of our nuclear in a nutshell idea is trying to address. If we can get some overall knowledge fed to people they will be able to chew on new information and see that it isn’t this nasty thing that it is made out to be and has different flavors.

Tim Meyer wrote:
I dread to think that industry and officials not using the thorium option in a molten salt reactor is such an embarrassment . . . can't be. The goals of the Flibe Energy design are actually the way nuclear was originally supposed to be done for domestic energy.

That information got lost in the arms race that followed WWII and we need to show that reactors can create things other than bombs and energy.

Tim Meyer wrote:
The nuclear power plant cooling towers? The steam radioactive? So there's some work to do. Jobs. That's good. There's a lot of college grads looking for work. Our national priorities are temporarily under construction. We'll get it.

I think changing the nuclear landscape from what people think of it to what Flibe is able to offer with LFTR would do a good ways to changing opinion. But to do that we need to get the idea out there, that’s what I’m working on at the top here. Then when I’m back at Tech to work on it at the ground level so that when the two meet up it has support across the board.

Lastly I met with the group in Texas that is setting up the interim waste storage facility. H.R. 3643 is the legislation.
Essentially they will store the waste and only use the interest from the $40B that was raised for Yucca Mt. to pay for the fees at the facility. I tried to upload all of the info that they gave us but it was too large. So if you look the bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... ll/3643?q={%22search%22%3A[%22\%22hr3643\%22%22]}&resultIndex=1) and go to http://wcsstorage.com/resources/ you can see what is going on and what information there is on this at the moment.
So far what I've been told is once the waste issue has been solved the way forward for nuclear should clear up some. That's the thing people aren't happy with having in their backyard and is a source for anti-nuclear proponents to say nuclear is bad. So this bill can make the public happy and remove or at least weaken an argument against us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 26, 2016 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Excellent news, Alec! Thank you. Looks like H.R. 3643 got re-introduced as H.R. 4745?

This is looking good. I am thoroughly delighted you're connected with Kirk. Working at the top is vital. Kirk has been at ground zero forever. What nut has a shell harder to crack with respect to anti-nuclear sentiment?

Alec Herbert wrote:
That's the thing people aren't happy with having in their backyard and is a source for anti-nuclear proponents to say nuclear is bad. So this bill can make the public happy and remove or at least weaken an argument against us.

That would be good. I just finished reading from about three years ago on this forum: Are LFTRs more proliferation resistant? - Board index » General Nuclear Discussion » Safety, Security, Proliferation; started by "lftrsuk" on July 29, 2012. The consensus up to January 15, 2013 was that Kirk is staying firm with the Flibe Energy LFTR design and convinced it will not increase proliferation risk, and denaturing, as in the Terrestrial Energy IMSR design (if I got that right?), is counterproductive and ruins the advantages of the FE design.

Our President is speaking at Hiroshima as I write . . .

On March 21, 2012, Robert Steinhaus asked, "Why not use a National Lab to build the LFTR prototype?" It was a productive discussion with a concluding post on April 02, 2013:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
artw wrote:
The discussion of thorium-based power production at the following link

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Curre ... Vrv9qLvuSo

contains the line:

There is significant renewed interest in developing thorium-fuelled MSRs. Projects are (or have recently been) underway in China, Japan, Russia, France and the USA.

What is the American project to which the article refers?

Thanks, Art Williams


Flibe Energy of course!

I would think, given the history and points made in discussing Robert's question, especially with respect to this new legislation, Alec, in memory of a great scientist who knew where the energy policy was headed back in 1970, Dr. Weinberg's incarnation in the Flibe Energy machine deserves a special exemption and a privileged reservation of a DOE site for building the prototype under the GAIN program and appropriations for its licensing plan, and the machine dedicated to Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, discoverer of U-233. This prototype ought to be itself started with U-233 and then designed for maximum breeding of U-233 to start subsequent LFTR licenses for a pure thorium fuel cycle program. The waste burners will be another program.

_________________
"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 03, 2016 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Florida
Alec Herbert wrote:
Also H.R. 2028 [Actions] is a new first step for nuclear, not specific to LFTR but as a whole and in the right direction.

Alec, H.R.2028 - Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 - passed the Senate May 12, 2016 (passed the House April 24, 2015 last year?) and has not arrived at our President's desk yet. It appears to fund nuclear in a number of areas; these legislative complexities are tough to penetrate for a SAC (Spent American Citizen). The other bills for green-lighting advanced nuclear would thus be funded?

Anyway, I'm going to try to follow the DOE-NRC Workshop on Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors next week Tuesday and Wednesday. Hope you got your reservation(s); it looks sold out. The results of your meeting(s) on the 9th will be very interesting.

_________________
"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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 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