Posted on 06/06/2013 12:24:07 PM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Of course, the Democrats here in Western Pennsylvania aren't nearly so corrupt as those in Chicago, the Left Coast and the Boswash corridor. Ours can be satisfied with merely looting the treasury whereas the others equally crave the tyrannical power to control others.
Of course, the Democrats here in Western Pennsylvania aren't nearly so corrupt as those in Chicago, the Left Coast and the Boswash corridor. Ours can be satisfied with merely looting the treasury whereas the others equally crave the tyrannical power to control others.
A couple months back I saw an article on the relative price of oil production.
From memory:
Off shore oil and Fracking are not profitable under $50.
Oil sands and shale oil are much worse - both need prices near $80 a barrel.
In this case, “shale oil” means the actual processing of mined shale to extract oil, which they do in Estonia, and tried to do in Utah after the first oil embargo in 1973.
Persian Gulf oil remains the cheapest - $5 to $10 a barrel to produce, except for offshore, of course.
yup bring on the FRACKING...the only thing WE have to fear is....a moosie free America....
Meanwhile there is over 3 Trillion barrels oil oil sitting waiting in the Green River formations.
Just wondering when the Free Trader Commie Globalists start sabotaging our domestic oil production....like they did w manufacturing, shipping, textiles, and other American entities.
Just wait....the Free Traders are gonna BS our domestic petroleum production.... working w OPEC to do it
Hydraulic Fracturing has been around longer than I have and I’m fixing to be 64. Every well gets fraced whether it’s a vertical drill or a horizontal, it’s the last part of the process after a well is drilled. Once you TD then you perforate in the chosen zone, with that completed then you frack and open that zone up. Where the cost of fracing is really high is with horizontals, a verical drill may get fracked in just one stage while a horizontal can have twenty to forty stages.
Sounds like a win for us.
That is the correct analysis of the hypothetical. It won't prove popular with many here.
Of the top five international sources of oil to the US, Only Saudi is there and it is maybe third or fourth.
The "Mideast" is no longer center stage for us.
Ben there, done that......
Honda Prelude then an Acura Integra.
Now the Sprinter Van. It is a touring vehicle.
I’ve been noticing some chatter from China (and other countries) about “LFTR” (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors).
Very interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw
Those are nukes but the half life is much shorter...correct?
Thanks for the links.
Thorium can be used for nuclear power but it has different characteristics than Uranium reactors. Thorium has a LONG half life of billions of years...that’s how the Earth’s core keeps chugging out the heat all these years.
I’m going to watch the links, but do you create a waste product you must store somewhere like a typical reactor?
Yes, there is waste BUT with big differences.
1. One ton of Thorium fuel produces one ton of waste (which is extracted continuously by chemical sifters and extractors). The liquid/salt fuel is high-temp but low pressure...convection is the typical mechanism but small pumps can be used to move the process.
Once waste is extracted from the salts, the Thorium decay cycle (which is different from the Uranium decay cycle) goes into effect. Some of the waste decays out in a few days, some in three months, some in a year and others in ten years). This comes out to about 83% of the waste. The remaining 17% decays out in 300 years...a much easier prospect for storage than plutonium or spent uranium.
It’s this 83% “inert” waste which has the LFTR proponents interested. This “waste” can be converted into numerous medical by-products and gases. The LFTR can also produce small amounts of P238 (non nuke grade) which NASA uses for atomic batteries for its probes.
A few examples....
Bismuth-213
45 minute half life, Alpha emitter. Attached to a anti-cancer anti-body which kills cancer cells.
Molybdenum-99
Used in medical diagnostics
This sounds like something we should be doing. What’s the hold up?
Thanks for the info.
There are several “road blocks”
1. Political: “nuclear” is a touchy subject within the DC beltway. It will take a coalition of scientists, investors, politicos as well as slight changes to how Thorium is classified (today, it is considered low-level waste).
As a side benefit, changing Thorium’s classification as a “resource” opens up Rare Earth Mineral (REM) mining in the US. Contrary to DoE, there is no REM shortage. According to several university studies, there are plenty of REM materials in the US but with Thorium classified as “nuke waste,” mining companies don’t want the hassle of storage/disposal. Consequently, this plays right into the hands of Chinese who have an artificial monopoly on REMs. The situation on REMs is so dire that many countries are angered at Chinese REM policies and desire an alternate source. If the US changes is Thorium policy, this can open US Thorium research and create a US REM market with eager customers and hi-tech facilities.
Whenever you have REMs (especially the desirable Heavy REMs...used for a variety of hi-tech products...including products for solar and wind generators) there will always be Thorium. Once separated, Thorium needs no “enrichment/processing” unlike Uranium. It can go strait into a LFTR vessel.
China, on the other hand, has no problem with Thorium and is storing it for its upcoming LFTR projects.
Also, DoE and NRC have delayed regulations on LFTR for over 30 years. They know only Uranium and are not familiar with Thorium. They would have to reeducate themselves.
2. Corporate: Since the 1940’s US nuclear companies have built up an infrastructure around Uranium for both power generation and military uses. Companies such as Westing House and GE make their money on Uranium enrichment and fuel contracts. Thorium is seen as competition to their cash cow.
If LFTR is to succeed in the US, it will most likely have to come from a co-op of corporations who are outside the normal nuclear suspects.
3. Academic: Much like corporate, they too have invested their time and efforts into Uranium research. Thorium, with few exceptions, is just an academic side note to them. But that is changing. Several countries (US, China, Czech Republic, Japan, Russia and India) are looking into Thorium as a potential power source.
4. Technical: LFTR research, until now, has been mothballed for 40 years and needs to be restarted. All of the academic papers and diagrams can only go so far until you have a working “next-gen” prototype which can be studied in full detail.
Most of the original LFTR team at ORLN has either died or retired. Only a few of them remain. A new team would have to be assembled who have expertise in Physics, Chemistry and Engineering.
The original LFTR design at ORLN (1965-1969), which wasn’t a full product (wasn’t attached to a generator), worked for 5 years strait and had several design concerns. According to the original technical team at ORNL these concerns were considered correctable...especially today with advances in computer designs, computer simulations and material upgrades.
If LFTR does get off the ground in the US, the first applications could be that of nuclear waste disposal and medical isotope production. Thorium as a power source will take time and perseverance as it first fills a niche market.
The TMSR (Thorium molten salt reactor design) advantages include:
It takes 200 times less Thorium to create the same amount of energy than raw Uranium. Refer to my blog How Thorium Reactors Work.
TMSRs are much cheaper to build than convention nuclear reactors since they don’t need pressurized containment.
The waste products of Thorium reactor are extremely small in volume, far less toxic and have a vastly shorter half-life than transuranic waste products associated with Uranium reactors. There ARE NO transuranic waste products with Thorium reactors. The waste products also contain useful and valuable by-products including medical isotopes and xenon gas.
Thorium reactors, using molten salt technology, are designed as inherently safe. If power is lost, the reactor goes to a safe condition. Loss of cooling water (due to loss of power) is the Achilles heel of current Uranium reactors. The temperature of reactants also cannot exceed that of the reactor metallurgy under any circumstances.
Thorium reactors, using molten salt technology do not operate under pressure and don’t require expensive containment buildings or extremely thick high pressure reactors..
Thorium reactors can be designed to not use water/steam for power generation and/or cooling, so they don’t need to be located near large bodies of water.
Thorium reactor power turbines operate with gases other than steam and operate at a much higher temperature with higher thermodynamic efficiency (50%).
These reactors can also “burn up” existing nuclear waste and can be a solution for the disposal of existing nuclear waste.
This technology has no nuclear weapons by-products. It can not easily be used to generate fissile material for bombs.
Like all nuclear reactors, there are no carbon emissions.
The molten salt reactors can be scaled in size to fit a single industrial application or larger for large-scale power plants for the electric grids. These types of power plants can be small and distributed to minimize power distribution costs. Small power plants can be disposed of more easily.
Thank you for taking the time to give me all that info. Since we don’t have any Thorium reactors, are you in the energy production sector or are you an academic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.