Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob

Google Tech Talk
May 26, 2009

Presented by Robert Hargraves.

Mankind's fossil fuel burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and deadly air pollution. Natural resources are rapidly being depleted by world population growth. Safe, inexpensive energy from the liquid fluoride thorium reactor can stop much global warming and raise prosperity of humanity to adopt US and OECD lifestyles, which include lower, sustainable birth rates.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• google
• tech
• talk
• liquid
• flouride
• thorium
• nuclear
• energy

[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.

[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.

[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?