And there's been this theory around for centuries that lead can be turned into gold — but unfortunately that has never been commercially feasible either.What we are facing is the end of civilization — and you are going to tell me that there is a solution waiting in the wings that will save the day — yet nobody is pursuing this?
Kirk - the NASA engineer tells us this is because governments are wedded to dirty energy — including nuclear.
Well Kirk — what about the billions the US has wasted on solar? Likewise the Germans have poured billions into solar. So have the Chinese. So has Spain.
So your comment that governments don't want clean Thorium because it is clean is total bunk.
Give your head a shake before you make such innane comments.
And in case you hadn't noticed — we are in the end game of an OIL CRISIS — as in the end of cheap oil is destroying growth and will collapse civilization. Even if thorium were to prove feasible - it does NOT solve the oil crisis.
You can't pour thorium based pesticides and fertilizers on crops to make them grow. You can't put thorium into an engine to lubricate the moving parts. etc etc etc…
Governments know this - venture capitalists know this — and THOSE are the reasons why they are not investing in R&D of this nature. It is a complete and total waste of time — it would solve nothing even if it were to be feasible (which it is not)
Nothing can replace oil. NOTHING.
Why would they give us a cheap energy source if it was available?In case you hadn't noticed the global economy almost collapsed in 2008 because oil went to $147 a barrel.
QE by the trillions is the response to that — it keeps the hamster on the wheel a while longer.
What we are facing is the end of growth due to high energy prices - end of growth means the collapse of civilization — and the death of billions.
Might I suggest those are some good reasons why 'they' would want to replace oil with a cheaper energy source (and btw - thorium - even if it were feasible could NOT replace oil)
HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH
According to the results of a quantitative exercise carried out by the IEA in collaboration with the OECD Economics Department and with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf
It seems almost daily 'the next big thin' in terms of energy is announced… recall how the Japanese were going to capture frozen gas from the ocean depths not long ago?
Still waiting for that to happen.
As for thorium this theory has been around for 60 years now — and how much of the global energy supply is produced from thorium?
Hint - starts with Z and ends with O.
And of course thorium cannot replace oil — and expensive oil is the problem
#1: Thorium won't replace oil. Unless we get a cheap PEM stack (cheap electricity can produce cheap hydrogen which COULD replace oil - eventually) and/or cheap battery technology. Then thorium could replace oil. So could wind power, actually. If you have too much wind electricity, just generate hydrogen instead, store it, and use it in your home/vehicle. But only if the PEM stack or the battery is cheap enough.
#2: According to the publication he referenced, the issue is one of proving out the fuel cycle. And given there are decades of experience with the uranium cycle, there are a number of unknowns with Thorium which will take a long time to prove out. Known unknowns, as a certain Sec Def once said. Utilities being risk averse beasts, and the UK (the author of said publication) not having any Thorium, they basically aren't interested.
#3: For nations like India who don't have Uranium and are worried about the supply being cut off due to geopolitics, the Thorium option looks really attractive. They are interested and will likely move forward just because of that.
Let's not mix the topics up. Thorium is about creating electricity, and is not being touted as a replacement for oil on this site.
It is being held up as an area we might wish to explore as a nation, or even as a species.
If the alternative is to continue to burn coal and natural gas for electricity or come up with a nuclear alternative like thorium LFTR technology, then I am all for seeing if there's something there.
The only other alternative is to propose that we do without electricity and that's going to be a hard sell.
Nobody can really make the argument that thorium reactors won't work for technological or commercial reasons because we simply don't have the data in hand as we've not yet tried. Given the choice of spending a trillion to bail out banks or a few hundred billion to prove out thorium, my priority would be 100% weighted towards thorium.
But to repeat myself, electricity and oil are not interchangeable energy sources and therefore have almost nothing to do with each other at this stage of the game.
Here is a partial list of things made from oil - http://www-tc.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf Thorium will replace those? Can you explain how?This is a pointless discussion – 60 years we have been speaking of thorium power — and thorium produces how much power?
Oh right - ZERO.
So how many more years before it works - 10, 50, 100? How about never - as in we have never produced gold from lead (although many believe that is possible)
Oil is causing the global economy to stop growing — we are on the cusp of collapse — when that happens most people on this planet will starve to death because we will not be able to produce food without oil and gas.
As I have pointed out - governments have blown trillions on solar power — and it is a total failureSolar – After Trillions of Subsidies and R&D and this is what we get? http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bernstein-energy-supply.jpg
The German Solar Disaster: 21 Billion Euros Burned http://www.thegwpf.org/german-solar-disaster-21-billion-euros-burned/
Spain’s disastrous attempt to replace fossil fuels with Solar Photovoltaics http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
So they have demonstrated their willingness to fund alternative energy solutions.
So ask yourself 'Why - if thorium was feasible - are they not spending trillions on this?'
Here's your answer - it does NOT work: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium (again The Guardian is dedicated to green energy — they support it heavily - so if they are saying it does not work - then you can be pretty sure it does NOT work)
You can find more on this topic on the best energy blog (former Oil Drum) blog on the planet http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/01/02/why-a-finite-world-is-a-problem/
Sorry this got so long.
I really like this website; there are always lots of insightful comments (It is hard for me to find time to contribute! I wanted to say my two cents days ago!) The energy issues we are facing absolutely fascinate and scare me. Peak oil type information is what let me to peak prosperity. Energy has been the key to life for eons, it is the key to our present civilization (and its undoing), and energy is the key for civilization to exist the future.
I am in the camp that thorium needs more exploration. I have no idea if it is viable, but I do believe it is worth humanity’s time to invest in people that believe in it and want to try; the cost is not unreasonable. Our civilization is malinvestment right now. We invest far more money in 20-30 miles of mega-highways in cities (which is debatably useful) or in maintaining banking cartels (utter complete waste) then in things that have real value.
I will be broadening my discussion beyond just thorium. There is so much we can do in the “energy” realm; I have really gotten to see a lot on this the last month:
· Earthships day long Talk by M. Reynolds in Salt Lake City
· MRS Conference (Material Research Society) in San Francisco
· Local Gardening Festival
Earthships— An individualistic, and self-empowering solution to energy issues.
I went to an earthship ‘biotecture’ day long presentation by Michael Reynolds — it was beyond fascinating. This guy has real solutions to provide people with their true basic needs, what people really really need energy wise in their homes. Check out the documentary garbage warrior for the flavor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNYFlcV9R1w
This guy has figured out how to make ‘living’ homes that passively take care of heating, water, sewage and some food needs from what nature provides naturally to the home. They need no inputs of utilities; these are independent cells. — This is completely counter culture and counter ‘normal business’.
One quote I wrote down was this, which I believe captures a bit of the essence of the entire day:
“We build homes that shed the water delivered right to a home by nature and discard it. And then we turn around and build multi-million dollar city wide utilities projects to bring water to that same home!” –Michael Reynolds
These homes are a zenith of freedom; a home that provides you what you really need gives you the freedom to do what else you need. He is giving a smaller talk in Colorado June 14 for just 2 hours if you are interested.
This is the type of energy thinking that has to be invested in to save our civilization in the future. I have so much I more I would like to say about this. One last thing; you can build a basic one room one for ~$15k; in a "pocket of freedom" area in the US, you can build one at about 1500 sqft for roughly ~200k; includes all the bells and whistles that the government makes you add.
MRS (Material Research Society) Conference
I went the MRS (Material Research Society) conference — about half of this conference is devoted to ‘energy’ problems (solar cells, batteries, fuel cells, etc). There was a lot of good information about energy problems and potential solutions as well. I bought a fascinating text book on energy and materials “Fundamentals of Materials of energy and Environmental Sustainability”, that I would suggest if you are into the nuts and bolts of what is going on in material science that are desired in our world, and to see what leading scientists are focused on. (Sideways note: Materials define history—iron age, bronze age, silicon age; materials are worth our attention)
The sad thing for me was, for all that was going on it was on the ‘normal business’ side of the coin; we (the scientists) solve the problems, companies implement the solution and society pays for all it. Being in this world I know too well that most stuff –though not all-- is hype that gets you the next grant; rinse and repeat. Energy is a side show to the real business of the day of getting the next grant; it makes me sad.
I am a bit afraid a potential thorium solution will have to run this fairly standard gambit. You need “super hype” to get the funding, and then if you ever get the funding you have to continue to generate “super hype” to maintain funding. Real solutions take second stage; and I see this backlash to this ‘grant maintaining’ culture in these comments. The hype in science stuff gets too high, and sets of many peoples lie detectors.
This is the world we live in where large sums of resources are needed to try to do something.
Local Gardening Festival
Sorry, I kind of lied in that this does not entirely tie into the energy issue, but it has been rolling around in my head with these other two lately, other than we need energy (food) to survive and our food system is a crazy fragile collectivist system (like everything else). One speaker really enjoyed was Caleb Warnock; a very passionate and knowledgeable gardening guru. (He has a few books out, such as the Forgotten Skills of Self-sufficiency used by the Mormon Pioneers). His ideas seemed to mesh well with the ideas presented by M. Reynolds earthships.
He started out with a history lesson about war or victory gardens during WWI and WWII. He pointed out that during WWI, the us still had ‘victory gardens’ going years after the war. Why? Then he showed an image, from the same time period, of Eastern Europe house without shingles, the people had eaten them because they had nothing else; they needed food. That is why the victory gardens continued after the war. He then pointed out that our world has only about 5% the variety of the domesticated vegetables/herbs/plants that we had 100 years ago (thank you Monsanto). Also, we are the absolutely least prepared people that our civilization’s thousands of years of history in dealing with our own food needs; and that a “zombie apocalypse” will happen again, such as they did in WWI and WWII, and we are woefully ill prepared (I would agree). He also stated that we do not have enough heirloom seeds in the entire US to feed just the people in Utah.
Anyway he, with a few others, are on a mission to save seeds and learn the skills to propagate them, which is a extremely important work in my mind. I picked up 40 or so types of seeds he brought that he found very conducive to growing in Utah (40$ well spent I think). He is also focused on year round gardening; he eats from his garden in January from stuff growing under the snow. He is also into “profitable” gardening, which he separates from ‘hobby’ gardening, meaning he spends less on the garden then he would getting food at the grocery store.
Finally ending….
Nice thing is that I(we?) still have time some time, I can use the time I do have wisely and not waste it away. I will learn all I can today, I got my fruit trees growing and my garden growing today. Maybe someday in the future I will be in an earthship, growing my own garden and producing my own seeds (like Caleb), in a resilient community, and getting to do a little science stuff as well. I(we) got to get there somehow.
one last thing, loved the video post "field of Poppies" banker slave. Thank you
Misleading promotions by the thorium nuclear lobby
I am not impressed by the claims of the thorium nuclear lobby. Their sales pitch would have us believe that thorium nuclear reactors are some kind of clean safe alternative to the current dangerous nuclear technology, based on uranium or plutonium as fuel.
Not true. Thorium reactors have safety and environmental hazards, as does every part of the toxic nuclear fuel chain. The thorium lobby believes in this fantasy of the “nuclear fuel cycle” - meaning that by some magic they provide a way in which some toxic products of nuclear reactors, – plutonium and enriched uranium, now play their part in kicking off the thorium fission. And it’s supposed to be all clean and lovely.
The mainstream, established nuclear lobby allows the thorium dream to persist only because the thorium dream offers some hope for the economically failing nuclear industry to hang on.
The thorium lobby on Twitter, regularly attacks me as being “in the pay” of the coal lobby, among other imagined offenses. Their ludicrous pretense is that if one is against nuclear power, one must be for coal power.- Christina Macpherson
SMR’s and similar forms of new nuclear generation are nowhere near either being developed and/or ready to be commercially deployed in the real world.
In fact R&D is now being reduced as US Energy companies and others World-wide realize that there are better ways to invest their resources that have none of the drawbacks to using nuclear. Babcock & Wilcox scaling back work on small modular nuke program | SNL http://shar.es/TA8JM + China has given its scientist until 2024 to prove Thorium will be economically viable, so the future of NEW nuclear is now at 15 years and counting downward…!
+
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) effectively mothballed
+
Lets let some other Countries waste Billions on Nuclear R&D and then many years from now (if ever) something does pan out, we can do what our competitors have been doing for decades, license their technology; meanwhile the USA should be racing Germany, while creating great jobs, by going renewable ASAP.
The USA cannot afford to squander its limited resources, instead we should be modeling the way by installing Solar (of all flavors) ASAP and creating jobs while we are at it!
Solar (of all flavors):
... Is faster to install,
... Costs less to install
... Is ready for 24/7 power
... Requires no decommissioning costs lasting decades
... Has no Nuclear RISK
and now Tesla is starting to market battery storage that will allow all those with rooftop solar and/or wind to store their own energy, which will fundamentally change the way people get the energy for their homes and even their vehicles! No wonder Big Oil and Big Utilities are doing everything they can to limit renewables!
I agree with you about Thorium not being the answer and also that Oil will be needed for many things for many years to come, but that said, I see Solar (of all flavors) being used to generate electricity, to power our eVehicles and/or create electrical storage that can be used when the sun is not shining to do many of the things that Oil is currently being used for!
I've been looking for good arguments against the LFTR, or whatever they're calling it these days.
"Much safer - No risk of environmental radiation contamination or plant explosion"
This is the first I've seen mention the volatility of Fluoride salt. A lot of Plutonium breeders have used Sodium around water with no incident, but I do find this rather scary.
As far as shorter lived waste, they mean that it doesn't produce Plutonium and other Actinides, 90% of Light Water Reactor waste is potential fuel and 10% highly radioactive, shorter lived waste. A LFTR produces just the 10%.
To me, the big deal is that it does not keep its fuel in Zircalloy tubes. This is the Achilles' Heel of all current solid fuel reactors. This material deteriorates at relatively low temperatures. They can't even heat water enough to make efficient use of a steam turbine. Even worse, the fuel rods have to be kept under water for 10 years before they cool off enough to expose them to the air. With a LFTR, you can just dump the fuel mixture in a nice nickel-steel drum and simply leave it be.
"More plentiful - LFTR reactors do not need to be located next to large water supplies, as current plants do"
The reactors can operate at temperatures where they can heat inert gasses to run turbines. This is preferable, as it is much more efficient than steam. I have to say that this isn't a valid criticism.
"Less controversial - The byproducts of the thorium reaction are pretty useless for weaponization"
These reactors breed U-233 very slowly, at best. In fact, some plans call for the reactor to never break even at all, and depend on waste Plutonium from Light Water Reactors for fuel. This is referred to as an "Actinide Incinerator." This can be taken as a plus or a minus, because the Plutonium in LWR waste, while highly contaminated with heavy isotopes of Pu, can also be used to make a bomb.
"Compared to Uranium-238-based nuclear reactors currently in use today, a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LTFR) would be…"
The unpopularity of nuclear power in recent decades has caused the price Enriched Uranium to plumit. India uses Heavy Water Reactors that run on natural Uranium, so the cost of fueling their reactors is even lower than in the US. India lacks great U reserves so they are beginning to use these reactors to breed U from Th, so there is at least one really big nation that is concerned that the supply of U is not endless.
It is the efficiency of the Thorium cycle that is most seductive. It is the only reactor that breeds and burns all its fuel in the Thermal Spectrum. Uranium reactors use only about 1% of the potential fuel, unless you're talking about Fast Spectrum reactors, and then the fuel has to be enriched to at least 20% U-235. The Russian Lead-Bismuth submarine power plant fuel has to be enriched to 30%, which puts that fuel into the neighborhood of that which powered Fat Man. This is why nobody likes Fast Breeder Reactors.
It needs to be noted that reprocessing LWR waste is against national policy. If nuclear waste were to be reprocessed, the difference between the efficiency of a LFTR and a LWR would be insignificant. Since our government is bent on a "once through" cycle, wasting 99% of your potential fuel seems illogical. Should there be a renaissance in Uranium fueled power plants, the price of Uranium will go up accordingly, so I cannot agree with this criticism, either.
I think Kirk is on the right track and I support his efforts. Develop thorium for energy. There seems to be no contest for efficiency, safety and feasibility. Let's do it!
Something that also makes too much sense for our government to adopt (or allow), hemp. Hemp seed is a super food, high in omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids in the right proportions. High in protein and fiber as well as high in vitamins. So, naturally something this good for us has to be illegal, right?
If we grow hemp for fiber and for paper, we can let the trees stand. Hemp slams wood on a paper yield per acre basis, and is renewable, and can be grown over and over on the same plot of land without harm. It doesn't need the harmful chemicals to grow either.
In Canada and Europe they are building homes out of hempcrete. One builder called it a no-brainer. Hempcrete provides R25 insulation for a 12" wall, and petrifies over time to be stronger than concrete, and it is 1/6th the weight.
Any one of these uses is important enough for us to grow hemp and cultivate it for industrial and commercial purposes. Now recently we have found another. Hemp can be easily and cheaply be turned into carbon nanotubes to replace expensive graphene. Studies are underway to develop hemp into super capacitors to be used in batteries.
And of course hemp can be turned into clean bio fuels and biodegradable plastics. If we used hemp based plastics instead of oil based plastics, we could stop contributing to the plastic pollution that is gripping the earth. Who doesn't think that is a great idea? Apparently our government. This information is not new, but apparently we ignore the good ideas and let our corrupt government serve the corporate interests to the detriment of us all. It is time to wake up and expect better from our leaders.
There is another answer to our problem, but the US government and the UN have gone to the trouble to make sure we can't have it. What is it? Hemp. Hemp is one of the most nutritious plants on the planet. Hemp seed oil is high in omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids, protein, fiber, etc. Hemp can also be turned into clean biofuels, fiber, hempcrete (R25 for a 12" wall), fashion, biodegradable plastics, paper and thousands of products. Growing hemp is good for the soil, does not need pesticides and requires less irrigation than most any crop. If this information is new to you, it shouldn't be. It has been written about many times before. It has been stated that it was probably the first agricultural endeavor of man. "I don't know if hemp will save the planet, but I know it is the only thing that can." Jack Herer, the Emperor of Hemp.
Hemp contains only .3% THC, so it can't get you high. Yet, our government managed to make it illegal world wide in order to protect petrochemical business, the timber (for paper) business and cotton business. If you don't know the story, read the Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer. http://jackherer.com.
The article in the Guardian you posted is critical of Thorium reactors, but stops short of saying they won't work. This reminds me of the argument for cannabis medicine that keeps coming up by critics. "Cannabis hasn't been proven to cure cancer in large clinical trials." However, it has been proven to reduce tumors in mice more than once. The normal progression then is to study it in dogs, then humans. I'm sure that there would be no shortage of humans lining up to be tested when the alternative is to go the path of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, neither of which is a sure thing albeit FDA approved. It is very convenient to say that cannabis has not been proven to cure cancer when the government itself stands in the way of the research that could prove things one way or the other.
So, I think the jury is still out on LFTR. If we spend some research dollars on it, get the bright minds to figure it out, who knows? And if we lift the ban on hemp world wide, perhaps there can be a future for those who come after us.
There is another answer to our problem, but the US government and the UN have gone to the trouble to make sure we can't have it. What is it? Hemp. Hemp is one of the most nutritious plants on the planet. Hemp seed oil is high in omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids, protein, fiber, etc. Hemp can also be turned into clean biofuels, fiber, hempcrete (R25 for a 12" wall), fashion, biodegradable plastics, paper and thousands of products. Growing hemp is good for the soil, does not need pesticides and requires less irrigation than most any crop. If this information is new to you, it shouldn't be. It has been written about many times before. It has been stated that it was probably the first agricultural endeavor of man. "I don't know if hemp will save the planet, but I know it is the only thing that can." Jack Herer, the Emperor of Hemp.
Hemp contains only .3% THC, so it can't get you high. Yet, our government managed to make it illegal world wide in order to protect petrochemical business, the timber (for paper) business and cotton business. If you don't know the story, read the Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer. http://jackherer.com.
The article in the Guardian you posted is critical of Thorium reactors, but stops short of saying they won't work. This reminds me of the argument for cannabis medicine that keeps coming up by critics. "Cannabis hasn't been proven to cure cancer in large clinical trials." However, it has been proven to reduce tumors in mice more than once. The normal progression then is to study it in dogs, then humans. I'm sure that there would be no shortage of humans lining up to be tested when the alternative is to go the path of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, neither of which is a sure thing albeit FDA approved. It is very convenient to say that cannabis has not been proven to cure cancer when the government itself stands in the way of the research that could prove things one way or the other.
So, I think the jury is still out on LFTR. If we spend some research dollars on it, get the bright minds to figure it out, who knows? And if we lift the ban on hemp world wide, perhaps there can be a future for those who come after us.