Posted on 05/22/2009 3:51:32 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Large scale production of post-carbon energy technology is a key to CO2. The post-carbon technology must must be producible in sufficiently large numbers to have a significant impact on of CO2 emissions, yet have low capital and operation costs. If capital costs foe a carbon replacement technology can be paid for our of fuel cost savings and other efficiencies, so much the chances of successful GHG mitigation will be greatly improved.
Massive deployment of post carbon energy technology would almost certainly mean reliance on commodity materials such as stainless steel, and cement. A really desirable post carbon technology would contribute those those processes which produce raw materials needed for its own production. Thus it would be highly desirable for a post carbon energy technology to contribute the heat needed to produce steel and cement, either directly or through providing heat input into a chemical process by which high temperature fuel is produced.Thus if a reactor provides the heat needed to produce hydrogen gas, and burning the hydrogen provides the heat needed to make cement, the nuclear technology may be self sustaining, in a way which renewable technologies is not.Consider the issue of a material like neodymium in LFTR generators. What might prove interesting about this pairing is the potential of the LFTR to produce neodymium. Neodymium is a fission product, and LFTRs would produce about 150 pounds of neodymium for every billion watt years of electricity they produce. This is the essence of green technology, the ability of a technology to produce the resources required to impliment the technology on a massive scale.
Windmills can’t do that. Windmill designers might choose to use neodymium in their generators, but they can never produce neodymium from the normal operation of their windmills. If neodymium has to be used in the manufacture of windmills, it has to be dug up from the earth. From the viewpoint of the production of scarce raw materials, the LFTR is simply “greener” that the windmill. From the viewpoint of Energy returned from Energy Invested the LFTR wins over the windmills hands down.From the viewpoint of carbon emissions per kWh of electricity generated, the LFTR wins over the windmill hands down.
Meier calculated that in 1998 conventional nuclear generated one GWhe for every 18 tons of CO2 emitted. Wind generated 14 tons of CO2.http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
Technological options played a very large role in the calculated CO2 emissions for nuclear.Were the analysis to focus on alternative nuclear technologies like the LFTR, the IFR, or the Indian FBR. the comparison between nuclear and wind would greatly favor the advanced nuclear technology.For example in American conventional reactors 3/4th of the associated CO2 emissions were from coal fired power plants that supplied electricity to uranium enrichment facilities.Thorium does not require enrichment. Hence the switch to a thorium fuel cycle produces a 75% decrease in CO2 emissions from the Uranium fuel cycle. Thorium is already mined at uranium mines, rare earth mines, and phosphate mines. Hence no added emission of CO2 would be produced in order to mine thorium. This produces a further reduction of CO2 emissions related to mining thorium. Thorium can be prepared for use in reactors using low cost, low CO2 emission fluoride chemical processes. Thus the CO2 emissions of of a LFTR would easily be 10% of those from a conventional nuclear plant ca. 1998.
Now the LFTR uses mined nuclear fuel form 200 to 300 times more efficiently than a conventional nuclear power plant. Thus the CO2 emissions of a LFTR in producing electrical energy is perhaps 0.05% of the indexed conventional nuclear power plant. This would give us a figure of about 18 pounds of CO2 per gWhe. Quite obviously the LFTR and other Generation IV breeders far outperforms the windmills as a carbon mitigation measure.
Reactors like the LFTR are highly scalable. They can be rapidly built, in large numbers and rapidly deployed. The LFTR is highly stable. Its operation does not require staff intervention, because it will shut down automatically before it over heats. Its core already molten so core melt down is not a problem, and passive safety features automatically dump the core into safe holding tanks in the event of an emergency. The IFR also has very advanced automatic safety features. Thus a requirement to hire and train a highly able, highly skilled and qualified staff, will not be an impediment to the deployment of advanced nuclear technology. Factory production, advanced labor savings technology, simple design, the use of common low cost materials all make the massive use of advanced nuclear technology a major route, and arguable the major route to CO2 mitigation during the next 40 years. What is required is a social commitment to advanced nuclear technology. Ironically India alone among nuclear capable nations has made that commitment and stands in another generation to begin reaping the reward for its courage and foresight. The United States has, in contrast, followed a nuclear policy shaped by nearsightedness and fear. Advocates of a policy informed by cowardice are welcome in the inner chambers of of the Obama administration. If our national nuclear policy does not change, if we continue to follow those who would shape our nuclear policy by appeals to cowardice, we will pay a high price. A nation of ignorant cowards cannot be great. Nor can such a country hope to successfully expect to mitigate CO2 emissions.
Scaling the LFTR: Large Scale Production and Cost
*************************************EXCERPT************************
Replacement of natural gas fired generating facilities would also produce a rapid repayment schedule, and immediate profit for the investors combined with the potential of lowering ratepayers cost. Thus far from giving us a world of expensive electricity, and electrical shortages created by an idiotic negawatts approach, the LFTR promised abundant low cost electricity, and the replacement of 80% or more of current energy delivered by fossil fuels, while lowering energy costs even after capital costs and interests are paid.
No wonder the oil companies and the coal barons are desperately hoping that Energy Secretary Chu will continue to follow the Energy Department line on the LFTR. No wonder Chu tells Congress that there is a terrible cracking problem with the LFTR, a problem that ORNL scientists solved in the 1970's. The advent of the mass produced LFTR would put paid to the fossil industry in the United States. The LFTR is extremely scalable, and can be produced in massive numbers at a low enough cost and to almost completely replace fossil fuels by 2050, and there are a whole lot of powerful folks that don't want you to know that.
Going the extra mile: Commentary: Promising battery technology should excite investors
If we have the cars .....we need to generate the electricity...
LTFR???? no place do I see what that stands for. typically the first time an abreviation is used, it shoudl have an explaination of what it means????
I am not so happy about nukes right now as a global energy source. too many bad nations shoyuld not have ANY nuke technolgy. it is thge nuke reactor technolgy we let pakistan have, that lead to them getting an A-Bomb.
look how iran had started out, a peaceful reactor for energy, and now they have a weapons program.
oh heck, we will never keep the technology from them, we ought to just nuke the scum nations now, before they get too many bombs.
Thorium and uranium occur in trace amounts in coal, so there’s more radioactive waste currently emitted from coal-burning power plants than from nuclear power plants.
Advanced nuclear technology and CO2 mittigation
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
************************************EXCERPT********************************
Large scale production of post-carbon energy technology is a key to CO2. The post-carbon technology must must be producible in sufficiently large numbers to have a significant impact on of CO2 emissions, yet have low capital and operation costs. If capital costs foe a carbon replacement technology can be paid for our of fuel cost savings and other efficiencies, so much the chances of successful GHG mitigation will be greatly improved.
Massive deployment of post carbon energy technology would almost certainly mean reliance on commodity materials such as stainless steel, and cement. A really desirable post carbon technology would contribute those those processes which produce raw materials needed for its own production. Thus it would be highly desirable for a post carbon energy technology to contribute the heat needed to produce steel and cement, either directly or through providing heat input into a chemical process by which high temperature fuel is produced.Thus if a reactor provides the heat needed to produce hydrogen gas, and burning the hydrogen provides the heat needed to make cement, the nuclear technology may be self sustaining, in a way which renewable technologies is not.Consider the issue of a material like neodymium in LFTR generators. What might prove interesting about this pairing is the potential of the LFTR to produce neodymium. Neodymium is a fission product, and LFTRs would produce about 150 pounds of neodymium for every billion watt years of electricity they produce. This is the essence of green technology, the ability of a technology to produce the resources required to impliment the technology on a massive scale.
Windmills can’t do that. Windmill designers might choose to use neodymium in their generators, but they can never produce neodymium from the normal operation of their windmills. If neodymium has to be used in the manufacture of windmills, it has to be dug up from the earth. From the viewpoint of the production of scarce raw materials, the LFTR is simply “greener” that the windmill. From the viewpoint of Energy returned from Energy Invested the LFTR wins over the windmills hands down.From the viewpoint of carbon emissions per kWh of electricity generated, the LFTR wins over the windmill hands down.
Meier calculated that in 1998 conventional nuclear generated one GWhe for every 18 tons of CO2 emitted. Wind generated 14 tons of CO2.http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1181.pdf
Technological options played a very large role in the calculated CO2 emissions for nuclear.Were the analysis to focus on alternative nuclear technologies like the LFTR, the IFR, or the Indian FBR. the comparison between nuclear and wind would greatly favor the advanced nuclear technology.For example in American conventional reactors 3/4th of the associated CO2 emissions were from coal fired power plants that supplied electricity to uranium enrichment facilities.Thorium does not require enrichment. Hence the switch to a thorium fuel cycle produces a 75% decrease in CO2 emissions from the Uranium fuel cycle. Thorium is already mined at uranium mines, rare earth mines, and phosphate mines. Hence no added emission of CO2 would be produced in order to mine thorium. This produces a further reduction of CO2 emissions related to mining thorium. Thorium can be prepared for use in reactors using low cost, low CO2 emission fluoride chemical processes. Thus the CO2 emissions of of a LFTR would easily be 10% of those from a conventional nuclear plant ca. 1998.
Now the LFTR uses mined nuclear fuel form 200 to 300 times more efficiently than a conventional nuclear power plant. Thus the CO2 emissions of a LFTR in producing electrical energy is perhaps 0.05% of the indexed conventional nuclear power plant. This would give us a figure of about 18 pounds of CO2 per gWhe. Quite obviously the LFTR and other Generation IV breeders far outperforms the windmills as a carbon mitigation measure.
LFTR is the abbreviation for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
I believe the LFTR neuters nuke weapon production....
CO2 is everywhere. Most of it is solid, or in solution and people don’t seem to recognize it. If you want your plants to get green, blow a little carbon dioxide their way.
In the post carbon era, LOL, what will carbon life forms do.
That’s almost unreadable.
Has me confused....ignore post #6...confusing blog.
**********************************
******************************EXCERPT****************************
The generation and use of energy is central to the maintenance of organization. Life itself is a state of organization maintained by the continual use of sources of energy. Human civilization has reached the state it has by the widespread use of energy, and for the large fraction of the world that aspires to a higher standard of living, more energy will be required for them to achieve it.
Therefore, I embrace the idea that we need energy, and probably need much more of it than we currently have. We should never waste energy, and should always seek to use energy efficiently as possible and practical, but energy itself will always be needed.
This weblog is about the use of thorium as an energy source of sufficient magnitude for thousands of years of future energy needs. Thorium, if used efficiently, can be converted to energy far more easily and safely than any other energy source of comparable magnitude, including nuclear fusion and uranium fission.
Briefly, my basic principles are:
1. Nuclear reactions (changes in the binding energy of nuclei) release about a million times more energy than chemical reactions (changes in the binding energy of electrons), therefore, it is logical to pursue nuclear reactions as dense sources of energy.
2. Changing the binding energy of the nucleus with uncharged particles (neutrons inducing fission) is much easier than changing the nuclear state with charged particles (fusion), because fission does not contend with electrostatic repulsion as fusion does.
3. Naturally occuring fissile material (uranium-235) will not sustain us for millennia due to its scarcity. We must fission fertile isotopes (uranium-238, thorium-232) which are abundant in order to sustain energy production for millenia. Fertile isotopes such as U-238 and Th-232 basically require 2 neutrons to fission (one to convert, one to fission), and require fission reactions that generate more than 2 neutrons per absorption in a fissile nucleus.
**********************************
He has 12 principles....read on....
Nuclear Energy is fine, but it is NOT necessary to subscribe to the lies regarding CO2 as being something to be controlled.
Adding this for anyone interested....
Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum
Blog header:
Ah, just build a fleet of cargo shuttles and mine the moon for helium 3.
Problem solved.
**********************************EXCERPT*********************
This article does not mention thorium but is still a good article about how other countries have reversed their outlook on Nuclear energy.
April 25, 2009
by Alex Alexiev
From the National Review
With the selling of President Obama's economic agenda now in full gear, this is a good time to take stock of his energy plans against the background of energy trends worldwide. Alas, even a brief glimpse reveals that Obama's focus on renewable energy and the introduction of a cap-and-trade regime runs counter to both economic rationality and current energy trends to the point of guaranteeing its inevitable failure, which will result in serious economic harm to the United States.
The president is imposing his green agenda on America, even as the renewable-energy bubbles of the Left are bursting, and the world is witnessing the astounding comeback of the kind of energy Obama scrupulously avoids mentioning: nuclear power. To understand this surprising reality, the best place to start is to look at the record of the three countries Obama specifically mentioned in his address to Congress as leading the United States in the renewable-energy revolution: China, Japan, and Germany.
China, he said, "has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient." True enough, but that effort has nothing to do with renewable energy, and it's not even clear that it's working. To the Chinese, energy efficiency means more efficient coal-burning equipment, co-generation, coal liquefaction, and other improvements of their primarily coal-based energy industry. Despite marginal improvements in this area, China is now the largest carbon-dioxide emitter in the world and can, at best, slow down but not stop carbon-emissions growth for the foreseeable future. As far as renewable energy proper is concerned, its share of total energy production not only is minuscule, but has actually declined over the past two years, according to Beijing's State Electricity Council. There is, however, one clean-energy sector in which China is making a lot of progress and has even more ambitious plans for the future: nuclear power.
...post carbon era...
These people are parodies of parodies. They are so freaking stupid that even Woody Allen couldn’t predict them in Sleeper.
Post carbon era.
Right. We’re all going to be eating silicon hotdogs and sh1tting silicon bricks.
gonna be some transformation isn’t it. Never thought about the silicon bricks though ...
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.