Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob

[chuckkottke]

I think it's a mistake to try and commandeer NASA's budget, space exploration is one of the highest achievements we make together. Budgetary shortfalls have many sources, one of which is a lack of progressive tax policy, too much power concentrated in the hands of giant corporations & their principal owners. Giving them more control over the energy sector would further erode our democracies. A diversity of socially responsible businesses & cooperatives + honest government is the answer.

[chuckkottke]

If constructing safer nuclear plants to replace older units would carry us on into a renewable energy future, this I could see as beneficial to humanity; and for use in navy vessels which rely on nuclear power, if these designs improve safety and reliability, ok. But as a mainstay, I believe the answer is with efficiency and ubiquitous solar and the like. Much of the developing world is toasted with the sun's rays - combine solar desalination plants with solar-electric water pumping ;--).

[chuckkottke]

Once greater efficiency standards become the norm, in a world with vastly lower energy demands, providing that energy with green energy sources becomes a much more achievable option. Plus, it is much more democratic, since energy produced from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and biomass can be done by a multitude of businesses or individuals or groups, decreasing the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

[chuckkottke]

To begin with, let's examine the assumption that energy use correlates to improving living standards. The way I see it, 80-90% of the energy we currently produce is wasted in inefficiencies from stem to stern, so let's start there. To incentivise the transition to a green efficiency economy, we need honest government that works for a well educated & informed citizenry. And the way to achieve that is by limiting the money flowing into politics, establishing fair contests for office.as a right.

[gukonni]

He states 100 MW plants versus (economies of scale) 1 GW plants are integral in a production environment with competitive suppliers and rapid turnover on the production line. He sees these smaller units facilitate "economies" as the technology develops.

What exactly was he meaning to say? He lost me.

Also in another point of his talk he refers to the transmission losses that're apparent when you have large units. This is because the larger units are serving more people. But is this misleading?

[gukonni]

He "pleads" for a national energy program to reroute some of hte money in NASA to thorium energy R&D. But why can't the private sector do this? If thorium is so wonderful as he argues here then why aren't the private companies doing the R&D to commercialize this?

[gukonni]

According to his diagram, there's about 800 years of thorium storage and reserve in the US to power the country. But in one of his earlier slides, he states that there's enough thorium in lemhi pass to power the US for a milleneum. Is this a simple error?

[mabuhayguy]

SEARCH ON YOUTUBE ''HTL GNN with Dr. Posadas: Thorium Reactor, The Alternative Nuke ''

[aloisgault]

I don't buy global warming, but I do buy finite oil/coal. I also agree that we do not know the long term effects of our "create, use, and trash" technologies. Thorium nuclear looks like it would be the best replacement for the coal generation plants

[MrCSSGUY]

00:24 --> Forever alone :D

[pNeeko]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I read in Wired magazine that a thorium reactor would cost roughly $50,000 dollars to refuel in waste handling and replenishment. On the other hand, to refuel a uranium plant costs around 10 million plus the risk of more lethal waste.

What the hell are we waiting for? What do we need plutonium for? I don't understand...

[2Manolo3]

@pNeeko "they" need the waste for nuclear weapons. You can't build weapons with thorium waste.

[SH0LVA]

@2Manolo3 That's correct. We have a U235/Pu239-economy BECAUSE these fissible materials have a dual use (nukes and reactors). Additionally, we have a powerful worldwide uranium/plutonium-cartel (the only conspiracy theory, that isn't a theory) that manufactures fuel rods and weapons-grade radionuclides. This cartel takes about 500% more money than justified - and is controlled by the financial industry. Therefore, Th-232 MSR reactors have zero chance in western- and nuke-possessing nations.

[2Manolo3]

@SH0LVA Then there is nothing left to do but wait until India or another country comes up with a reliable Thorium power plant. It would be very dumb to wait. But hey that's what the world is now. Some people don't want progress. Then if india achieves it their economy will boom and ours will drop. In the end we will buy the power then from them. It's just sad. THE NR 1 REASON is SCARCITY. If a product isn't scarse prices will drop. But the powers that be don't want that and max their profit.

[SH0LVA]

@2Manolo3 "....Then if india achieves it their economy will boom and ours will drop...." That's correct. The bad news are, our economy is already on its final stage of disintegration. When China pulls the credit plug, we can say Good Bye to our wealth. It's a historical fact, all high cultures declined in the moment, they abandonned the production of their (physical) goods. Manufacturing goods is the key to economical prosperity, since science, technology and education are required to do that.

[ecologist96]

@pNeeko The reason why reactors with plutonium were developed was because the governments wanted nuclear bombs.Then it just kind of stuck. And when something gets a good base in an economy, it's difficult sometimes to push alternatives.

[SH0LVA]

@pNeeko The uranium/plutionium industry is cartelized. This multi-billion industry (controlled by the financial industry) has ultra high profits, when they build and sell fuel rods on a global scale. Th-232 MSRs don't need fuel rods. Hence, the cartel would be circumvented. Therefore, they maintain a strong political lobby and stall every attempt to introduce Thorium-MSR technology. Sweden attempted to build a MSR, but the banks threatened the govt to shut down all credits.

[2Manolo3]

@SH0LVA it's sad to see people stop progress just for their own benifit. My answer would be If you can't beat em join em. These old dragons are destroying the lives of their people in the name of the almighty dollar and greed. I didn't believe I conspiracy theories before. But I do since the "financial coup d'état" we had from Goldman. People just don't matter. Each day more people are killed by corporations by neglect then because of war.

[SH0LVA]

@2Manolo3 Real conspiracies are based on and driven by the infinite greed and addiction to power of alpha-humans. However, there are natural self-regulatory mechanisms. One of them is the decline of corrupt civilizations. The ancient Mayas, Incas, Persians, Egypts, Greeks and Romans experienced it. Now, the western civil is on that long list (keywords: Deindustrialization, National debts, Banksters) - while China and India have just startet their civilisatore cycle. Lean back and enjoy the show.

[bigpchamber]

This could be a great 60 minutes story. Here's the lead "In the late 1960s, scientists at Oak ridge Lab developed a nuclear technology which some say could solve all of our energy problems - including nuclear waste. So what is this technology and why arn't we using it? " tic tic tic.

You could deliver it with an anti corporate slant - stick it to conventional nuclear establishment. emphasize that the LFTR was rejected because it was no good for making bombs. 60 minutes would love that.

[cybercutealicious]

what a LIE population is NOT STABLE in the US POPULATION!!! WE ARE DOUBLING EVERY 50 YEARS! ALL DO TO MASSIVE ILLEGAL AND LEGAL IMMIGRATION

[HerrKnitler]

@cybercutealicious

THEY TOOK'R JOBS!

Shut the fuck up and stop making so many kids if that's your big concern.

[captinseperoth]

This is fucking amazing

[bmecher]

"climate change/global warming" really is not a major concern, we are aware of the possibility, and are considering it in plans now. It is not the crisis that many of the Hare Krishna true believers claim. The "scientists agree" conclusion is NOT a fact. Check out the Scientific American survey on climate change at their website.

[petsoukos]

The only man made is the energy crisis not "global warming"....

[bigpchamber]

Seems to me lftrs could be developed from private funds. The biggest obstacle will be regulation, special interest resistance (oil, gas, coal, solar, wind) and public acceptance. Implement lftrs will probably require as much money in lobbying and public relations as in research and development. We shouldn't assume that LFTRS will prevail purely on their own merit even though it is the biggest no brainer of the century.

[Weenchit]

@bigpchamber I like LFTR very much. But given the realities of a destructive regulation environment I think it is a better idea to concentrate on establishing a thorium fuel cycle that can be used in current reactors. This is more achievable and would help make things like LFTR more possible. For a while LFTR has been getting a whole lot of attention - and not without good reason - it's a great idea. I think it might be time for some consolidation of efforts to work towards something achievable.

[jjmdirector]

@bigpchamber That's why you DO NOT BUILD IT IN THE US 1st. South Or Central America would be a great place to test and implement the 1st generation of these reactors, That would eliminate the Political aspect and just let the players play. Then the real issue is Can you get your hands on the Uranium

[williamb293]

@bigpchamber China would be interested in this technology.

[bigpchamber]

@williamb293 China has announced they are working on this technology. They probably have been working on it for a number of years. They have had scientists tour the Oak Ridge facility, the Oak Ridge documents a all on the Internet and they probably have tens of thousands of tons of thorium as a bi-product from their rare earth metal mining. If we don't develop the LFTR I'm sure they would love to sell it to us, on their terms of course.

[williamb293]

Respond to this video...  He makes an argument that Prosperity stabilizes population. Aithiesism also stabilizes. It is the muslims, and christians that crap out the most kids. They don't care about the destrustion of resources and over population because they think some god is in control

[pauliewmusic]

@williamb293 I would say secularism rather than athesim has a stabilising effect. But prosperity is far more important. Also by implying that people of religion have as many children as possible with disregard for the planets resources you are implying that non religious peoples choice of having less children is based on some conscious decison linked to saving the planets resources. I highly doubt this is ever the reason. It is more to do with personal cost and personal freedoms.

[MrTeaB]

uranium skyrocketting is the only way I can see us moving to these reactors...sigh

[annettefleuryem]

Thank You jesus this actually works

[davidrrrd]

OMG he looks and sounds like bill gates

[heavyweather]

It's too expensive anyways. A 1GW kitegen would cost 80-100 million. No fuel needed and no decomissioning costs.

Only maintainance work which would create a local industry.

[yushis1]

broken window fallacy

it's better for everyone to create something that doesn't need maintenance in the first place

[heavyweather]

you mean like just save energy instead of a power plant...thats right, thats what we should do in the first place.

[Fordi]

I don't know if you watched the video, but dude made it pretty clear that conservation is not a clear solution.

[heavyweather]

So that dude knows everything and you switched off your mind?

I am off the grid with wind energy and planning a 14kw hydro.

Load balancing could save a whooping 50% of peak power alone.

You know what happens to liveforms that grow to much or get to inefficent.

What is the solution? Where is it? As long as you don`t have it we stick to renewables.

Solar Power will be about 70% of the market in 2080 if you believe in most studies...

[bartp84]

@heavyweather

Solar power is one of those medialized promoted but useless alternative energies. (At least in Belgium). I am not opposite too alternative energy but I would defenitly rate windenergy much higher than solar because of price/kWh (29euro/kWh minimum for wind versus 190euro/kWh for solar. Then if you look at windenergy you still need a backup to store it when there is no wind (most likely hydrostorage at this moment) which costs immense money. So i rather follow the LFTR idea.

[heavyweather]

like what?

It is best to create something that works with the least trade offs.

You are reaplacing your glas windows with what?

[yushis1]

he was making an argument that kitegen power is better because it "creates local industry"

this is crazy - it is essentially saying that it is beneficial to have MORE people devoted to power generation. Yeah you might pay 20,000 people to "maintain" your kitegen, creating a local industry, but their time would be better spent elsewhere if possible (e.g. with centralized nuclear power)

the more efficient option is the option which uses the least physical resources and the least human resources

[heavyweather]

When you have local industry+cheap power vs. more expensive power and little local jobs you go for the second thing?

That might work if you pay unconditional basic income but in most places jobs are shorter than power.

Who would you sell your power to?

Now...that is a word...EROIE 375 and you are for the kitegen again...

Your economy will fail without jobs.

[heavyweather]

The real argument is that kitepower is cheaper...by a factor of 5 AND that it creates jobs.

Where is your problem with that?

You can still develope LFTRs.

Most communitys would still opt for jobs and cheap power vs. cheap power only.

[yushis1]

it's essentially the same distinction as widespread agriculture vs. subsistence farming

once widespread agriculture becomes common in society, a class of people is created who are able to devote their energy to education, innovation, industry, etc.

the human resource component of power generation is similar - centralized power improves efficiency through economy of scale and simultaneously minimizes the human labor cost of extracting energy from the environment

[heavyweather]

Thats exaxtly how you kill of sustainable growth. Once you free people from labor you have to create other work.

Cost is a very abstract figure in a complex society. What is a monetary gain for one human beeing can be a substantial failure for the whole society.

Local power generation does free people from centralized political power.

Economy of scale does not apply to every domain in life.

for you US guys...what if there was only centralized power...no weapons for people just army.

[Fordi]

"A 1 GW kitegen"

Would cover several miles of sky.

[heavyweather]

So what...you can scale it up to 60GW.

There is enough sky.

You know...you need a no flight zone for nukes too.

2km³ for 1-4GW is nothing.

Kites can avoid obstacles automaticly.

Go offshore and built kitegenstems.

There are numerous other real world solutions.

[Fordi]

How talented are you at math? Because real world solutions require more accurate math than you can, apparently, do.

[heavyweather]

Now you try to compensate for your missing education by insult?

[Fordi]

Observation.

A 1 GW kitegen would effectively cover several square miles of sky. 60GW would cover a small city.

Seriously, almost any method of power generation is more cost, land and labor efficient.

Given that you *know* this stuff and still think kite is a good idea, you can't do math well enough to discuss these things rationally.

[heavyweather]

I figure you have not read about the kitegen.

Where does it waste land? How many more people would operation require than an ordinary powerplant?

It is a ring structure. Like a Railroad.

How much space is wasted! by highways, coal mining or mining in general? You can still have agriculture inside a ring structure.

You sure know the difference between a lift and a drag machine? You know how much power you can extract from a given flightpath? How do you know the exact footprint?

[heavyweather]

A 1GW kiteplan would be 1.6km² . Thats about one squaremile...not several.

It is a rail...

There are approximately 233000 miles of railroad track in the United States.

A 60GW kitegen would use a 10km diameter ring.

But it does not cover the area.

There is enough space for such a structure anywhere.

[bernzeppi]

Remember back in the day (60's) when James Lovelock popularized gaia theory... all followers of the global warming ideology were anti-establishment, pot smoking, left wing, free sex, sitar playing idiot commies intent on bringing down the west's financial system?

.. well now if you believe in it you are a right wing lying establishment butt-hole intent on getting rich out of this fake trumped up unbelievable fantasy green pseudoscience which will end up bringing down the global economy.

sigh!

[d0nj03]

"contributing to global warming and deadly air pollution"

Brazen lies. CO2 has negligible influence on warming and it has NOTHING to do with "deadly pollution". The damned thing fertilizes plants, allowing them to grow with less water and in fact gives them most of their "body" mass (if you thought plants took their mass from the ground, think again). Plus it's what humans breathe out, remember? Now who came up with this fucktup idiocy that we're breathing out a "deadly pollutant"??

[bernzeppi]

you can prove its not a deadly pollutant by putting a plastic bag over your head... when the co2 builds up you get horny and have a big wank... co2 is obviously good dude!

Ask David carridine or michael hutchence

[d0nj03]

That's no more relevant than saying water is a "deadly pollutant" because you die if you seal your head inside a bowl full of it. The fact that a particular substance was never meant to be breathed by humans is not enough to make it a "deadly pollutant".

Wise ass.

[bernzeppi]

thankyou

[aishumadz]

u'r right about the fertiliser part but increasing co2 is also causing problems......................­.......even plants breathe out co2..........everyone needs to breathe to live......understand?

[d0nj03]

Are you for real? Plants take IN the CO2 and put OUT the OXYGEN (O2) that WE breathe in.

Man, the Church of AGW is full of scientific illiterates, isn't it.

[Fordi]

Burning fossil fuels do produce deadly stuff, not just CO2.

The description is badly worded. It's more a talk on innovation in nuclear power than anything else - do you object to that?

[yushis1]

I don't like how everyone's first idea for "where to get the money" is gutting NASA.

This has been happening for 30 years

[aishumadz]

what do you mean? (no offense)

[yushis1]

No offense taken, I meant pretty much what I said though.

In 1963 - 1969, the NASA budget was about 3 - 5% of the US Federal budget. This has slowly been whittled down to 0.52% for 2010.

And it shows - back then NASA built a rocket platform from scratch and put men on the moon. Nowadays it accomplishes very little in comparison.

It just seems like whenever someone needs money for a pet project, they propose taking the funds from NASA because they know that not very many people will object.

[myrmecophilous]

I agree, it's BS. Everyone picks on NASA because they don't realize how much technological innovation NASA generates; everyday technology everyone takes for granted wouldn't exist but for NASA.

How about taking some money from the defense budget instead? (over 514 billion$, nearly as much as the rest of the world combined). Do they really need laser planes? I don't think so.

[gstanford]

In his excellent lecture, Hargraves makes an very good case for a nuclear cycle that completely consumes its heavy-metal fuel. However, his dismissive attitude toward the

Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) is unwarranted. The IFR has all the advantages he cites for the LFTR -- and the IFR is now ready for a commercial-size demo (as the GE-Hitachi PRISM reactor), whereas the LFTR is still rather early in its development phase.

[fireofenergy]

It's a shame that the nations energy secretary, Mr. Chu is not seriously considering the LFTR and molten salt reactor concepts! (Maybe he thinks we like to conserve!).

People should not label the science behind GW as simply "a religion". By doing so, they imply ineptness. (God wants us to colonize the galaxy?) True, GW could be countered by more clouds (positive albedo) but it is still a FACT that we are increasing co2.

Enviro's, listen up...

Don't kill a watt - MEGAWATT !!!

[phxfreddy]

global warming ....global schwarming......its the new religion of the left.

Sorry I am atheist to ALL religions!

[yushis1]

Part of being skeptical is realizing that there are people more qualified to address certain scientific questions.

In this case, most of those people believe global warming is happening, so I tentatively believe them.

I am willing to at least entertain the possibility that they're wrong, just as much as any other scientific theory.

But when you start calling something a "religion" and dismissing it, you give away your motivation as not really coming from genuine skepticism.

[Knepperify1]

@yushis1

-

"But when you start calling something a "religion" and dismissing it, you give away your motivation as not really coming from genuine skepticism."

When a group continues to maintain their point of view, even in light of facts that contradict their point of view, then you have Faith, Belief or Religion.

-

It's been shown that AGW is not occurring and that the scientists believe it is and think it should be stopped; so they fudge data, programs and output to show what they want to.

[TheInternetizen]

@Knepperify1 Prove the world's experts are wrong, then. The onus is on you. An ignorant youtube comment lacking any substantiating proof or evidence of proof is not sufficient, unless your plan here was to make yourself look like a foolish moron.

[Knepperify1]

@TheInternetizen

Do you usually hide behind the fallacy of Appeal to Authority?

Or just today?

The East Anglia data release had, in addition to the emails, the software used to model the temperature changes, In the software were the coding comments made as the software was written.

1) The software was a mess, a mashup of various authors work.

2) Every single time there was an adjustment to measurements, always in the software they adjusted temperature UP. Never DOWN.

That's called bias.

[TheInternetizen]

@Knepperify1 If you actually want to inform yourself, check out some of the ArsTechnica articles that discuss this very thing. Read the comments sections too. Actual scientists write the articles and actual scientists and people who work closely with those scientists post on those articles. But, like I said, only bother if you actually want to inform yourself.

[Fordi]

How about the "religious" view that we should be producing our own energy, rather than being dependent on saudi oil?

What about the "religious" view that nuclear power is literally six orders of magnitude more energy dense than fossil fuel?

What about the "religious" view that, for example, coal mining is literally removing the tops of our mountains?

That neither solar nor wind can either meet US energy demands, nor load follow.

That "clean" coal ain't?

Nuclear is necessary. Period.

[RobertHargraves]

This presentation and related materials are available on the web. Just Google "aim high thorium".

[YellingSilently]

I love technology and I love what people are trying to do, but , am i feeling over paranoid when i think these feel like the last recordings before Armageddon? Like in 2 years from now will will smith will be raiding Youtubes server center just to get some more cat videos and he stumbles across this. Anyone else think i'm not totally crazy?

[xNAgff]

"Anyone else think i'm not totally crazy?"

No.

[Fordi]

Nah, I just think you watch too many movies.

[Phyle9]

So you want to make energy and also reduce waste?

The solution is simple: make energy from the nuclear waste!

Or even better: use the forces of nature that are around us anyway, like try to store a lightning.

[Fordi]

You seem to be making a distinction between nuclear energy and natural forces.

There isn't really one, you know; nuclear energy is a natural force.

[Phyle9]

It is? Hmmm...

ok

But seems slightly more 'artificial' to me.

Do processes like in nuclear power plants happen in nature? I mean not created by man.

Naturally.

I think natural forces can be used to create nuclear energy, but that nuclear energy is natural force? hmmm....please explain.

[yushis1]

@Phyle9 the core of the earth is partially heated by nuclear reactions

In the crust of the earth, it's not common, but examples exist

[samking12]

carbon taxes

[KhmerD0g]

cool

[behglah]

I like this!