Thorium, the Next Nuclear Fuel?

mrshermanoaks writes "When the choices for developing nuclear energy were being made, we went with uranium because it had the byproduct of producing plutonium that could be weaponized. But thorium is safer and easier to work with, and may cause a lot fewer headaches. 'It's abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn't require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind. Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab's finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.' So why are we not building these reactors?"

Comments

Cost

[Pharmboy]

Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs, so they go hand in hand, and cost less in the short run. Even Iran wants nuclear power for this reason.

Re:Cost

[RichMan]

Nope the thorium reaction path produces weapons grade fissibles.
So still no explanation as to why no common use of Thorium reactors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

The thorium fuel cycle mainly creates Uranium-233 which can be used for making nuclear weapons, and since there are no neutrons from spontaneous fission of U-233, U-233 can be used easily in a gun-type nuclear bomb. ... some weapons proliferation risk due to production of 233U; ....

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which uses thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core.[21] India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2011, following which five more reactors will be constructed.[22] Considered to be a global leader in thorium-based fuel, India's new thorium reactor is a fast-breeder reactor and uses a plutonium core rather than an accelerator to produce neutrons. As accelerator-based systems can operate at sub-criticality they could be developed too, but that would require more research.[23] India currently envisages meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050.[24]

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Our country builds it's fifth reactor after a long debate lasting decades, no our country does not build nukes nor does our neighbor country Sweden. Your right about Iran though.

Re:Cost

[sznupi]

Japan, Canada, South Korea

Those certainly use their own tech in nuclear reactors, they actually build them instead of contracting out. But don't have any bombs.

Ukraine is also an interesting example. Not sure how much of a nuclear power plant they can build domestically, but certainly quite a bit...and they had 5000 warheads when the USSR dissolved. Got rid of all of them.

Re:Cost

[_KiTA_]

So still no explanation as to why no common use of Thorium reactors.

Same reason we don't use hemp paper, and why anyone thinking we'll move away from oil based cars before the famine starts is fooling themselves.

The existing corporate status quo makes money doing it this way, and they won't change unless made to (by, say, running out of uranium or oil or what have you).

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power plants are very unpopular in ukraine, for obvious reasons...

Re:Cost

[Mashiki]

Plutonium fears from breeder reactors and the green movement in the 60/70's with their irrational fear of "OMG NUCLAEAR!!!111"(yes I spelled that wrong on purpose). Accidents with things like the sodium reactor in Japan, and so on just give them more fearmongering tools. Instead of "we need to make sure this doesn't happen again, what went wrong and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again." That's why we're 30 years behind the times, and why the US has no functional breeders, and why you're just starting to use MOX again, and why you ship plutonium to Canada, Japan and S.Korea for us to make the fuel for our own reactors.

I realize that people are going to get pissy as I've now blamed the entire environmentalist green movement, reality is that's why there haven't been any new reactors built in the US. You need oh 100 easy, you needed 50 new ones to be under construction 20yrs ago. Even Japan and Canada have a projected timelines for new reactors into 2065 and where/when they'll be built to deal with electrical generation.

Re:Cost

[nedlohs]

What type of nuclear reactor to use it completely unrelated to what fuel to use to power cars.

You aren't going to stick a nuclear reactor in the trunk, and how the grid gets its electricity has no impact on electric cars either.

Re:Cost

[naasking]

A heavy water reactor is the anti-thesis of the salt-based Thorium reactors.

Re:Cost

[Mikkeles]

'Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs...'

In this case, one can't blame Canada!

Re:Cost

[_KiTA_]

What type of nuclear reactor to use it completely unrelated to what fuel to use to power cars.

You aren't going to stick a nuclear reactor in the trunk, and how the grid gets its electricity has no impact on electric cars either.

My point is there is an existing system that involves large amounts of profit in doing it the old way, and the people making said profit have no reason to foster change just because science said so. In fact, given the dismal state of the US education and patent systems, companies often can actively push back by simply hiring, destroying, or buying out people with new ideas.

Look at digital music, for example -- we had to drag the music industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and they only came along after they had time to get their lawyers and executives to put down their clay tablets and abacuses long enough to think up some admittedly pretty innovative ways of screwing the rest of us over.

I guess a more succinct way to put it is that corporations have used profit to make science and progress their bitch this past century, and I see no reason why this won't continue going forward.

Re:Cost

[cheesybagel]

Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs, so they go hand in hand, and cost less in the short run.

No. South Korea, Japan, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, have nuclear reactors and do not have nuclear weapons. This is not by any means an exhaustive list either.

You do not need nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons. You can make nuclear fission weapons by using U-235 or Plutonium. If you have a centrifuge cascade like Iran does, or some other means to separate fuel, you can make U-235 weapons without owning a single nuclear reactor. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) was of this type.

Re:Cost

[joocemann]

Hemp paper makes writers want to rape and kill!

Hemp paper is used by negroes and latinos!

Down with the hemps and their evil papers!

(sarcasm)

Yes, its madness.

Re:Cost

[AigariusDebian]

Well, then there is an easy solution to the Iran problem - provide them all the help to set up new Thorium-based reactors that can not produce weapons, in exchange for shutting down their current program. Win-Win.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

It was an anology, you tool, not a byproduct of his argument. Nice yoda-speak, btw.

Re:Cost

[cheesybagel]

I have heard the hemp paper argument before. Try reading some actual publications on the field. An eucalyptus monoculture is about as cheap, or cheaper, than hemp in some places. Hemp is only used in countries which have limited land area, so they use crop rotation with hemp

Re:Cost

[koolfy]

My point is there is an existing system that involves large amounts of profit in doing it the old way, and the people making said profit have no reason to foster change just because science said so

Maybe the fact that 4x more product from the same ammount of raw material (in your example) could recude production cost per product unit, increase margin and make a step ahead from competitors ?

Re:Cost

[hardburn]

One caveat: U-233 will inevitably get you some U-232 as well, which is much more radioactive stuff compared to Pu-239 (the stuff most bombs are made of), so it's easier to detect, which in turn makes weapons inspections easier and less invasive. Given that it's inevitable that any country that really wants to make a nuke will be able to do it (if N. Korea can do it, anyone can), a country that's using Thorium reactors for power can be considered operating with a measure of good faith.

Re:Cost

[dziban303]

Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs

That's ridiculously inaccurate. There are dozens of national nuclear programs that have reactors for power generation and research which don't build bombs.

Re:Cost

[Bigjeff5]

Apparently the big money-maker is not in power generation but in producing reactor-grade Uranium, which is expensive.

Thorium requires no pre-production, it can be used exactly as it is found in nature. So if the production of fissible Uranium is where all the money is made today, and you introduce a system that eliminates that function, lots of money goes away.

That's what the GP is talking about.

And it's not like some enterprising new company can come in and just start making Thorium reactors, making nuclear reactors is very, very hard and require a lot of expertise. The folks who can pay the scientists are the folks with lots of money - i.e. the folks who want to maintain the status quo.

Re:Cost

[senselesswaster]

U-233 is probably not a significant proliferation risk, as produced it is inevitably contaminated with U-232 which produces hard gamma radiation from its decay products(pdf). This makes it very hard to handle and very easy to detect, not great attributes for building a bomb.

A more credible proliferation risk (IMHO) is that once you've perfected breeding U-233 from Th-232, you might well have gained all the expertize you need to breed Pu-239 from U-238.

Re:Cost

[peragrin]

japan and the ukraine both have strong reasons not to have nuclear weapons.

Canada really don't need to have their own as any attack on canada is just as bad as attacking the USA anyways. (most canadian cities are near the US borders).

South Korea has external pressure not to piss off the people 50 miles away.

Re:Cost

[that this is not und]

Your 'big oil monopoly' theories are very, very 1970's. Can't you move on?

Re:Cost

[that this is not und]

It's very difficult to regulate and control the production of THC-producing plants (cannabis).

This is why the government is so strongly opposed to it. It can't be taxed and controlled easily. Any dumb pot-head can grow a years supply of it in a few pickle buckets, anywhere on the planet.

It isn't difficult to grow like tobacco, and massive-scale growing operations are not needed, as with opium or cocaine.

Re:Cost

[Dr. Spork]

Yeah, everyone is trying to get those deadly Thorium bombs! Right?

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you looked a little more on Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

"Because the 233U produced in thorium fuels is inevitably contaminated with 232U, thorium-based used nuclear fuel possesses inherent proliferation resistance. Uranium-232 can not be chemically separated from 233U and has several decay products which emit high energy gamma radiation. These high energy photons are a radiological hazard that necessitate the use of remote handling of separated uranium and aid in the passive detection of such materials."

Re:Cost

[Dr. Spork]

Huh? You think if there is a famine we will use available farmland to grow shit that we press for oil to put into our gastank? Didn't it occur to you that this would be rather strange behavior in a famine?

Re:Cost

[bertok]

Because everyone that has nuclear reactors also builds bombs, so they go hand in hand, and cost less in the short run.

No. South Korea, Japan, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, have nuclear reactors and do not have nuclear weapons. This is not by any means an exhaustive list either.

You do not need nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons. You can make nuclear fission weapons by using U-235 or Plutonium. If you have a centrifuge cascade like Iran does, or some other means to separate fuel, you can make U-235 weapons without owning a single nuclear reactor. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) was of this type.

Not quite true. You can't make Plutonium based weapons without a reactor, because it is an artificial element. It exists only as a trace in Uranium ores, and can't be extracted in meaningful quantities, it has to be made. The first nuclear weapons were made with the first reactors.

Re:Cost

[pacbowl]

It's very difficult to regulate and control the production of, really, any plant (anything containing sugars, amino or fatty acids). This is why the government is so strongly opposed to it. It can't be taxed and controlled easily. Any dumb alcoholic can ferment or distill a years supply of it in anything from few pickle buckets to a simple device the size of a small car, anywhere on the planet. It isn't difficult to produce like tobacco, and massive-scale growing operations are not needed, as with opium or cocaine. /fixed it for you

Re:Cost

[TangoMargarine]

And Canada's Commonwealth so the Brits might get just a little pissed off...and NATO and all...

Re:Cost

[joocemann]

2 things on that point:

1) In September 09, in the Journal of Experimental Botany, research was published to demonstrate all of the genes required for THC synthesis in cannabis. Thus an RNAi or Knock-in(knockout), or possibly a GMO using Agrobacter tumefasciens, can now easily be done to ensure there is no THC production in the plant.

2) Despite my belief of it to be irrational, they can still maintain that the THC-laden cannabis production to be illegal, and the crimes can still be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. I'm reminded of the common flawed thinking/argument of decriminalizing drugs in which it is assumed that doing so would permit people to do all kinds of drug-fueled crimes like driving under the influence (lets ignore that most drug fueled crimes emit from the black markets of prohibition); the problem in this idea is that it somehow assumes that, for example, a rapist on decriminalized crack is any less punishable now that the crack is legal to use. That's simply not so. In that case, rape is still a crime and can still be prosecuted. The rapist goes to jail for rape. We don't ban alcohol just because drunk guys don't ask drunk girls for permission to date rape.
----

I'd like to argue that the government is more strongly opposed to Hemp because its widespread permission in our culture would further expand the public awareness of the benevolence and lack of hysteria-causing effects of cannabis. Put alcohol, cigarette, and pharmaceutical lobbies into political pockets and you've got plenty of reason to keep people in a state of "reefer madness".

As for taxation, you should come to Cali and talk to a medical marijuana dispensary. They are ALWAYS selling out of stock. The patients are not usually so disabled they could not grow it themselves but simply prefer the easier method of purchasing it. These transactions are all recorded and taxed, and if not, that is illegal as well and can be investigated and prosecuted. It may be easy to grow, but that doesn't mean people will always do it on their own.

Liquor and Beer are actually easy to make, too. People pay a premium for something off the shelf, and that is where it is taxed. A legitimate farm with organic conditions and desirable strains of cannabis could EASILY attract a number of consumers. Amsterdam is also a standing example of this. People *could* grow it in their closet, but its much easier to walk down the street to a coffee shop for a J and a cup of coffee, spend $5 and have a nice day.

On a related note:
Its really funny, though, our politicians who have also smoked pot, still pander to the old (and likely those lobbies) when it comes to cannabis. The cat is literally out of the bag and now about a half mile down the road away from it. Most people under 50 either have personal experience with cannabis, or have at least witnessed first hand how the drug is nothing like it is pretended to be by our government. Most citizens still against its legalization are from the reefer madness era and their minds are still unchanged from the irrational hysteria they were fed by people they trusted. As those irrational old people pass away or finally share a J with their grandkids and see the truth, times will definitely change.

Check this out:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_stats.shtml

That's a LOT of people finding out. I hope I'm speaking to someone of experience.

Check out the UK.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/cannabis-use-in-britain.htm

Re:Cost

[swillden]

You do not need nuclear reactors to make nuclear weapons. You can make nuclear fission weapons by using U-235 or Plutonium. If you have a centrifuge cascade like Iran does, or some other means to separate fuel, you can make U-235 weapons without owning a single nuclear reactor. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) was of this type.

Not quite true. You can't make Plutonium based weapons without a reactor, because it is an artificial element. It exists only as a trace in Uranium ores, and can't be extracted in meaningful quantities, it has to be made. The first nuclear weapons were made with the first reactors.

Little Boy was a U-235 gun-type bomb. The very first nuclear weapon was made from refined uranium, no reactor required. Fat Man was a plutonium bomb.

Re:Cost

[Ozlanthos]

Actually the reason we won't go to hemp oil is because we are having too much fun imprisoning one another over marijuana cultivation/use. As soon as that game pisses enough people off, then we will be open to revoking our status as the "Only industrialized nation not growing hemp". The reason we cannot legalize hemp (and end middle-eastern rule over us) is because 90% of all of the "outdoor grow-ops" we tear up every year (under the guise of "marijuana eradication") are actually patches of untended "feral hemp". If industrial hemp were legal for farming, we would have to call a spade a spade, and redirect the billions we piss away every year weeding our fields and forests of it.

-Oz

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting... I wonder if this at least partially explains all the NPT talks between the US et al and India recently.

Re:Cost

[Pinky's Brain]

Personally I'm really not sad of not having a lot of sodium reactors in my backyard ... containment breaches might not be very likely but I have my sincere doubts about their economic viability if you take into account their propensity for turning into containers for molten pools of radioactive cement and the costs for cleaning those up.

There are some reactor designs which simply make sense, water moderated reactors and the aforementioned thorium reactors for instance, and there are some which simply don't make sense ... such as carbon moderated reactors without a safety dome and sodium cooled reactors.

Re:Cost

[Vintermann]

Meh, I'm undoing all my mods in this thread just to reply, but no matter: Are you sure those countries weren't thinking about nukes when they built them? Sweden did in fact build their reactors in order to be able to build nukes, plans which they fortunately ditched.

If frickin' Sweden thought about it, you can bet the others did as well.

That is, in essence, why much of the environmental movement is so mad at nuclear. It's not about meltdown. It's because for fifty years, nuclear power research had all the funding, and nuclear plants all the subsidies, because they were really "dual use". What could we have had if all that money had been sunk into wind, or geothermal? What the environmentalist movement says is essentially "you've had your chance, military pigs!" (but there are also pro-nuclear environmentalists who say something to the effect of "but it's sunk costs, and there are promising things within reach!")

Re:Cost

[jmccay]

Don't forget the tree-huggers will not let us mine for it because we'd probably desturb the mating habits of some dung beetle or something. One only needs to look at California to understand that we are stuck in a stalemate. The tree-huggers don't want to use oil products to produce energy (California could be in the black instead of the red if it actually drilled for oil), coal, wood, and even nuclear. China's starting to create a strangle hold on REE that's needed for the green technologies they swoon over which doesn't produce the same bang for your energy buck as the other stuff. Do you actually think think for a moment the tree-huggers will let any mining happen? They would rather live in the dark ages.

Re:Cost

[SirWinston]

But that would take large capital investment of hundreds of millions if not billions in R&D, production of new facilities, etc., which would decrease short-term profit statements--and executives want to avoid decreases in profit statements at all costs so they can keep stock prices as inflated as possible, and milk their yearly bonuses. The current corporate structure punishes good long-term planning and rewards short-term profitability, so it's not surprising that no one's interested in innovating if it costs too much in the here-and-now to build increased profitability in the distant tomorrow.

Hell, one of the first things "forward-looking" executives do when they get into power is cut short-term costs by any means necessary, even if it means crippling the entire company's future by, for example, spinning-off the expensive R&D operations which have kept the company innovating into new companies so their budget gets off your books. Cf. "Agilent" and "Lucent"--after being spun off, their parent companies stagnated grossly, with the venerated HP a shell of its old self and the "original" AT&T imploding through corporate greed and stupidity with SBC buying up a relatively-empty husk. Oh, and in the process AT&T bought Olivetti Research Laboratory, "Europe's leading communications engineering research laboratory," only to shutter it 3 years later to save money. Corporate asshats at work.

Remember all those financial wizards who melted down the whole economy by discovering new ways to make a quick buck, at the expense of--well, the whole country? How many of them are in the unemployment line now, and how many are still making millions? Yep, thought so. Those car-maker execs who failed to innovate and took the whole American auto industry from best-in-the-world to also-rans--how many of them are collecting unemployment alongside the factory workers they put out of work? Yep, thought so. A few of the top execs lose their jobs whenever big corporations get run into the ground, but they always [golden-] parachute into a new company right quickly.

The whole corporate system is FUBAR, and I have to blame it on globalization--which pushes governments to deregulate lest multinationals scale back in-country operations for laxer overseas venues. So no, no one will willingly invest hundreds of millions to billions to get "4x more product from the same ammount of raw material" and "re[duce] production cost per product unit, increase margin and make a step ahead from competitors" if they can make more short-term profit by business as usual.

Re:Cost

[TheTopher]

Actually, the proliferation risk is very minimal. Production of U-233 from Thorium-232 yields a small amount of U-232, which is a hard gamma radiation source. This means that it fries electronics and is in general far more hazardous to work with. Of course, one could isotopically separate the U-233 from the U-232 but if you have the infrastructure necessary for that, you might as well be making U-235 and Plutonium bombs.

Re:Cost

[shutdown -p now]

I realize that people are going to get pissy as I've now blamed the entire environmentalist green movement

Not really. You've blamed the mainstream environmentalist/green movement, which is definitely mostly anti-nuclear, but not all environmentalists are - in fact, some old-timers who made the whole thing going way back then are now pro-nuclear, and criticize Greenpeace over its anti-nuclear policy.

In fact, I dare say that nuclear power is the only reasonable choice for a pragmatical environmentalist: it is significantly better than all options that we use today, and it is the only source that can viably maintain our present civilization level, without "going back to the caves" - the latter being effectively implied by all calls to use strictly renewable non-polluting energy sources. In some regions, there is potential to go almost, entirely clean (e.g. U.S. in particular has a lot of potential for wind power; Canada and Russia can - and, in fact, do - bet on hydro; etc), but ultimately, planet-wide it will have to be nuclear.

Re:Cost

[quanticle]

I'm not suggesting that nuclear ought to be off the table, but I do think that liquid metal reactors are not the best or safest design. I'd much rather live next to something like a Pebble Bed Reactor, or some other design that has passive safety, rather than relying on active cooling in order to prevent meltdown.

Using sodium in a reactor is also a bad idea, because its reactivity with water makes firefighting a much more hazardous activity.

Re:Cost

[quanticle]

Got rid of all of them.

To be fair, one of the things that helped Ukraine get rid of all its warheads was the nice subsidies we were willing to pay in order to prevent those warheads from falling into the hands of less savory nations. Not that I'm resentful of that, of course.

Re:Cost

[careysub]

A heavy water reactor is the anti-thesis of the salt-based Thorium reactors.

Antihesis? I hardly think so, it is just another thorium reactor technology - one that is more mature. I think we should look at as many viable candidate thorium reactor technologies as we can, and develop all them to the point of establishing whether they are commercially attractive or not.

There will be dozens of AHWR reactors operating, in all likelihood, before a single molten fluoride salt starts producing power on an industrial scale.

Re:Cost

[cheesybagel]

Was Belgium thinking of having nuclear weapons? How about Finland? They are even building a new nuclear reactor right now.

It is bullshit that nuclear power had all the funding and all the subsidies. The US did a lot of investment in the Federal Wind Energy Program between 1974 and 1981. Even NASA had a lot of research projects in the area. Between 1981 and 1988 hundreds of millions of federal tax credits were sunk on wind projects of dubious value. While without the nuclear reactors that power strategic submarines, arguably WWIII would have already happened. Submarine launched missiles ensure a nation has the ability to strike back even in the case of a massive first strike, giving pause to anyone thinking of starting a nuclear war.

Just because a nuclear power plant demands a larger initial investment than a single windmill does not mean it is more subsidized. Dams require a large initial investment as well. They still provide cheaper power in a lot of places.

What is wrong with dual use technology anyway? The Haber-Bosch process helps to make nitrogen fertilizer to feed billions of people today. It is also useful for making explosives. Would you rather us to be still digging up Chile for saltpeter, or collecting guano? ENIAC and ARPANET were built for the military as well. Canned food was invented by Nicolas Appert for the French Empire military.

Re:Cost

[Jamu]

Fairly sure it was the other way round: Fat Man was the gun-type Uranium and Little Boy was the, smaller, Plutonium device.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably should have checked before posting. You're right: Fat Man was the Plutonium implosion device, and Little Boy the Uranium gun-type device.

Re:Cost

[Phaedra]

Bzzt... wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_man and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Re:Cost

[evilviper]

Same reason we don't use hemp paper,

Because it costs 6X as much?

and why anyone thinking we'll move away from oil based cars before the famine starts is fooling themselves.

Because the established option is quite a bit cheaper than the nearest alternative option?

The existing corporate status quo makes money doing it this way

Right... sorry. Big conspiracy! That's what it is!

Re:Cost

[koolfy]

mod parent "answers the GP question". Oh wait, just mod him "Insightful", then...

Re:Cost

[mosb1000]

For one thing, they've never built a thorium MSR. If you want to burn thorium in a conventional reactor, you'd need to reprocess your fuel. Of course, they could get a dramatically increased amount of energy out of Uranium if they used fast reactors and fuel reprocessing. The problem is that reprocessing is expensive. That's why there's the interest in molten salt reactors, they think the reprocessing can be done less expensively. But the breeding ratio for thorium is very low, much lower than uranium in a fast reactor (which we know is high enough to be sustainable). It may be too low for the thorium fuel cycle to be sustainable. Someone needs to actually build one to see if it can work. So the problem is that they are not even experimental at this point, they are hypothetical.

Re:Cost

[Vintermann]

"Was Belgium thinking of having nuclear weapons? How about Finland? They are even building a new nuclear reactor right now."

I don't know. Not all countries are eager to admit such things, but Sweden and Switzerland have. Other countries which we know have used their civilian programs as cover for weapon production are Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, and Iraq, not to mention France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa, the countries that actually succeeded in making a bomb.

I did not say nuclear had all the funding. It had way more, I don't see you arguing that.

Think about all the "dual-use" technologies that have been so immensely valuable to the world, then imagine those resources being used directly towards making valuable things for the world, instead of just as a fortunate side-effect of making new toys for generals. One of the best things you cite in your list, Arpanet, was even based on more than a little deception to gain access to those bottomless dual-use funds (the whole notion that routing would "continue functioning after a nuclear attack" was BS, and Arpanet pioneers have admitted today that they knew it).

I don't think that's the way things ought to work.

What if we got a little blasphemous, and instead called Eniac, Haber-Bosch, Arpanet and all the space program related inventions testaments to the efficiency of government projects? Because that's what they were. There's no magic to military government projects that make their projects more efficient and productive - quite the opposite if you ask me.

Re:Cost

[peragrin]

Canada had nukes until the mid 80's, and they have dozens of nuclear reactors through out the country, with at least 6 of them within 75 miles of where I am currently sitting.

As for commonwealth status, Canada has been independant from british control for decades, while the queen is still head of state she has about as much say as all the other voters.

Re:Cost

[swillden]

Fat Man was fat because the physics package was a large sphere of explosives surrounding a sub-critical sphere of plutonium. Little Boy was long and thin, with a uranium "bullet" at one end and a uranium "spike" at the other.

Re:Cost

[farrellj]

Actually, that is not true. Canada has some of the most advanced, and ancient Nuclear Reactors in the World...The Montreal and later Chalk River labs contributed significantly to the Manhattan Project. So Canada is really one of the top pioneering countries in the World in atomic energy. But Canada never built a bomb. What bombs Canada did have were American bombs, and have been given back to the US by the 1980s. Canada doesn't want the bomb.

ttyl
          Farrell

Re:Cost

[_KiTA_]

Huh? You think if there is a famine we will use available farmland to grow shit that we press for oil to put into our gastank? Didn't it occur to you that this would be rather strange behavior in a famine?

No, I think when we run out of cheap gas, the trucks bringing McDonalds Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese meals to most of our urban population centers will stop, and a very very LARGE number of people are going to be too pissed at $15/gallon milk to be upset at $15/gallon gas.

And before anyone points out "But most people don't survive on Fast Food" -- the same thing goes for just about everything we eat now. I live in Idaho. I think locally, as in, no imports from out of state, I could get Sugar, Potatoes, and Milk. Maybe some more supplies, if I really looked into it, I admittedly haven't.

Anything else would need to be shipped in from a factory farm someplace back East. No gas? Hope you like fried taters.

If we don't have the gas to send 18 wheelers around, food prices are going to go through the roof -- if we can even get food to the markets at any price -- and people will starve.

Re:Cost

[Ozlanthos]

"Hemp is only used in countries which have limited land area, so they use crop rotation with hemp"

Was this meant as an argument against or for hemp? I can't see how it could be considered a legitimate argument against it, as most crops not grown on trees or vines have a limited duration of the year in which they can be grown. Being able to work yet another cash-crop into your rotation would be nothing but good news to a person making their dough in agriculture.

Eucalyptus may be as cheap (or cheaper "in some places") as hemp, but in truth it has many disadvantages by comparison. A. Hemp seed is high in protein and is also a viable source of Omega-3 fatty acids, B. Hemp oil can (and had until Prohibition stamped out all hempinol fueling stations...)yield an ethanol-based fuel suitable for automobiles, C. Hemp grows much faster than eucalyptus in far more varied environments than are suitable for Eucalyptus trees. I could go on, but I will spare you the deluge of uses Hemp can be put to where Eucalyptus cannot be used as an analogue...Google it sometime.

-Oz

Why?

[Broken scope]

Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.

Sustainable nuclear power is a threat to their pocketbooks.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot?

Re:Why?

[Ichijo]

Sustainable nuclear power is...

...an oxymoron. There's only so much Thorium in the world.

Re:Why?

[QuoteMstr]

Hey! Guess what? Everything is finite. What do you think you build solar panels and wind turbines from, pot smoke?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Obama administration and Congress under Pelosi have made it clear that along with wiping out the health insurance industry, their vision for "Green Eeconomy" includes a massive wealth transfer from big corporations to their constituents. Nuclear power doesn't fit into their vision for the future.

Re:Why?

[samkass]

Solar panels and turbines, though, are catalysts in the sun->electricity process. They aren't consumables. It's true that parts wear out and efficiency decreases over time, but the "fuel" is the sun and that has a couple billion years of habitable life left.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

A billion years is still finite. That helium isn't renewing itself, and the point is the same: if your "non-renewable resource" exists in such abundance that it'll last thousands of years, why worry?

Re:Why?

[Ichijo]

if your "non-renewable resource" exists in such abundance that it'll last thousands of years

That's if we only convert the existing US reactor fleet to thorium. If we were to build new reactors as population increases and coal plants go offline, it may reduce thorium reserves to only hundreds or even tens of years.

Re:Why?

[matt4077]

Ah, it's the green energy companies conspiring against Siemens, Westinghouse, GE and Shell day on slashdot. I love those days. Full of wit and imagination!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

amen

Re:Why?

[Cwix]

Hmm 100 years.. give us time to make lotsa solar panels and wind turbines before we run out, not saying we as a collective will have the smarts to do that, but it will give us an opportunity to advance our technology to a less finite resource. Just cause it will eventually (potentially thousands of years) run out isn't a viable reason for not using it.

Re:Why?

[cheesybagel]

There's only so much coal in the world as well. But we have been burning it for centuries and there is still more.

There's only so much carbon fibre in the world to make windmills too.

Re:Why?

[Nemyst]

Plus, we've been evolving our energy sources since we first found fire. It's not because we have found a workable and sustainable source of energy that we'll necessarily stop any further development. All it means is that we'll have more time to keep going.

I do believe that we can use thorium-based reactors to sustain us for as long as we can and by then we'll hopefully have workable fusion reactors, at which point resources are much less a problem since, you know, fusion uses water. And hey, we'll also probably find something after that.

Re:Why?

[CodeBuster]

Because a number of groups with rather different goals have one thing in common.

Or they just don't like nuclear power, mostly due to ignorance and irrational fears, because they are basing their objections on the technology of the 1950s rather than the newer and safer alternatives available today. These people tend to favor what I like to call "hair shirt" solutions to climate change which emphasize mandatory conservation, forced reductions in use and other even less palatable suggestions of the "smelly hippie" variety. Eventually they will be forced to choose between lesser evils and nuclear power is the only currently available option that is even remotely viable for replacement of fossil fuels in non-transportation roles. Even Al Gore admits this in his recent book (although I thought that he was slightly biased "against" in his presentation of Nuclear Energy; especially compared to more upbeat chapters on wind and solar energy which, while useful, cannot supply the majority of our energy needs).

Re:Why?

[Dr. Spork]

Sorry to break it to you, but there are only so many years that the sun will be burning and the wind will be blowing. So these aren't sustainable either, right? The truth is, there is a practical method for extracting Uranium and Thorium from sea water. Japanese research shows we could do this for about $120/kg of Uranium - which, if burned completely in a reactor produces a great deal of energy. Since Thorium is more abundant, it should be cheaper.

And the nice thing is that even if we used seawater Uranium to provide 100% of the world's energy (inc. transportation), the rivers of the world would still be adding more Uranium to the oceans each year than we could ever remove. So nuclear fission is not indefinitely sustainable. It's only sustainable as long as rivers keep running to the sea, which is on the same order of magnitude as the life cycle of sun-type stars.

Re:Why?

[TangoMargarine]

...breeder reactors?

Re:Why?

[Eziril]

Because 'Big-Uranium' bought up all the patents and made them secret.

You can't make a patent secret. That's the point of patents, we're not a system of trade secrets. Knowledge gets shared when the patent is approved even though exclusive rights are retained by the inventor for 20 years. I'm sure the majority of thorium reactor technology patents are expired since research ended so long ago. Now if the researchers never patented their research and kept it secret that's another matter.

Re:Why?

[palegray.net]

I'll happily take a hundred years worth of thorium-based nuclear power over fossil fuel based solutions. Guess what? Technology will have advanced significantly by then, and we'll be using something else anyhow.

Re:Why?

[Der PC]

Um... and you think the parts just happen to exist in their usable form in the earths crust, eh?

We just dig up a usable wind turbine ?

Not so.

The carbon footprint of making one 60m high wind turbine is approximately the same as the carbon footprint said wind turbine will save in fossil fuel in its lifetime. The addition of pollutants like solvents, heavy metals and other bi-products adds insult to injury.

Best of all is that these products are all finite resources as well.

So which heap do you want to dig from ?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP understands sustainable isn't synonymous with infinite material, second poster. There are plenty of resources to build these plants and have them run sustainably for MUCH longer than traditional sources of power. Jackass.

Re:Why?

[MJMullinII]

The Obama administration and Congress under Pelosi have made it clear that along with wiping out the health insurance industry, their vision for "Green Eeconomy" includes a massive wealth transfer from big corporations to their constituents. Nuclear power doesn't fit into their vision for the future.

Maybe then you can explain to me why almost a dozen *NEW* Nuclear Power Plants are either, a) BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, or b) in the end phases of licensing for construction?

It's a cute fable from the right than left-wing groups killed Nuclear, but like most fables, it's full of holes. Nuclear Power died in the United States, really even before Three Mile Island.

While Three Mile Island is the favorite target for blame, fewer and fewer plants were being ordered, period. The reason for this is a Classic "bubble" effect. Nuclear Energy was the end all, be all for decades starting in the 50s, but by the 70s the bloom was already starting to come off because of massive cost overruns and extended building schedules.

While the Government does share some blame (archaic licensing requirements, for one), the largest portion of blame belongs to the contractors who constructed the plants and the companies that ordered them.

Nuclear Power has always been (by comparison to the U.S.) dirt cheap in countries like France because of the most basic Capitalistic principle, standardization. The French basically licensed two or three designs, spent the time and money guaranteeing those designs were safe and efficient, and then simply chose from those two or three designs every time a new plant was needed.

Well, common sense tells you that once you build a plant two or three times, you'll most probably have discovered all the weird things that creep out of any new engineering project. by the time you've built it five times or more, you can almost be certain that the procedure in building the fifth plant is going to be almost identical to the procedure you use to build plants six through ten (or ten through one hundred, etc.)

In the United States, however, utilities looked at Nuclear (if you will please excuse the pun) like dick-measuring contests. It seems every utility spent more to make sure their plant was as different as possible from the ones that came before it. It's as though they were trying to be as expensive as possible just to show they could.

Every single plant was unique, every single plant had to be gone over from scratch for safety checks, every single plant had to have custom manufacturing processes invented just for it, and every single plant always cost just as much (in some cases, more) as the proceeding one (going back to the first one, practically).

There was never any traction made on standardization (in construction or licensing)

Because of this, Nuclear's supposed advantage over coal (cost, chiefly) *never* materialized in a timeframe that made it a selling point.

People and companies brag now of the Economics of Nuclear, but these plants are all hitting middle age now, where the costs to run them have pretty well been determined and likely costs for the future can be calculated.

What excites me about the future of Nuclear in the United States are plants like the Westinghouse AP1000 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

These plants are modular, can be built over and over again as many times as needed. Are engineered from the start with economy in mind (rather than "gee whiz, that's cool!"), and,best of allare fully licensed by the NRC right now.

As opposed to the early plants, the licensing procedures for these plants are greatly simplified because the NRC has already determined that th

Re:Why?

[Vintermann]

> The carbon footprint of making one 60m high wind turbine is approximately the same as the carbon footprint said wind turbine will save in fossil fuel in its lifetime.

No. Not even close. Orders of magnitude wrong.

Re:Why?

[bug1]

Hey! Guess what? Everything is finite.

Your begging for an argument arent you...

Real things are finite, ideas know no bounds.

So, now a question to you, are ideas things ?

Re:Why?

[Idiomatick]

Yeah that would be a problem in 300~500years if we can't find any new ways to produce energy...

being conservative of our resources is nice and all but do SOME research.

Re:Why?

[iammani]

Mmmm how can the both patent it and keep it secret?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make a patent secret. That is the entire point of a patent: The design and function is made a public record in exchange for a limited time monopoly.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, no bogarting.

Re:Why?

[matty619]

I think a citation is required for such a statement.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to tell us which way it's orders of magnitude wrong?

Re:Why?

[JetTredmont]

The "uses more carbon to produce than it saves in its lifetime" charge is a persistent myth. It seems just "shocking" enough to be true, and happens to coincide with what many rich interests would like to be true. As a result, it comes up quite often in non-fact-centric talk shows and as a result is something that a lot of people just "know". Unfortunately, it's just not true.

I have researched this and haven't been able to find a time when it was EVER true, but it certainly isn't true of either modern solar cells (even in small-scale deployments) or wind turbines. Moreover, as the general power supply becomes "greener", the carbon footprint for manufacturing (a huge portion of which comes from the energy needed to produce, not raw materials) also declines.

Example calculation for mid-size (office building) solar deployment: http://greenestofthegreen.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/solar-panels-the-smallest-footprint/

- Calculates a carbon break-even point of 15 months, for a product expected to last for 25 years on the inside.
- Obviously comes from the company making these, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's not likely to be off by the order of magnitude or more needed to make your statement true.

I can't find similar calculations for wind turbines fro a quick Google search, but the return on carbon "investment" there is shorter-term (assuming a windy area and fairly large-scale deployment of multiple wind turbines in a pass). If you have a citable reference stating otherwise, please share it with the class.

Re:Why?

[arthurpaliden]

OK I forgot the tags. I thought the use of the phrase 'super-dooper' might have been enough.

Re:Why?

[shutdown -p now]

The carbon footprint of making one 60m high wind turbine is approximately the same as the carbon footprint said wind turbine will save in fossil fuel in its lifetime.

Source?

Re:Why?

[mhajicek]

There's only so much pot smoke to go around...

Re:Why?

[mhajicek]

Too bad that just as we use up the Thorium we'll invent FTL, but find that it requires Thorium...

Re:Why?

[cbhacking]

We currently only use a small fraction of a percent of the energy in our Uranium fuels, and we only use a small percentage of Uranium (U235) in the majority of our current reactors. With full reprocessing (something that no nation currently does, as it's more expensive than just mining more even with the costs of storing un-reprocessed waste) we have enough fissionable fuels for breeder reactors to produce our current global electricity demand for roughly a billion (or milliard, i.e. 109) years. That's many times longer than the human race has existed thus far.

Granted, energy demand is constantly increasing, and a lot of the fuel is hard to extract (there's lots of Uranium in the oceans, but it's in very low concentration). Even so, we have decades of fuel available at current technologies and current price points. Thorium reactors would extend that by a factor of about 4, without even getting into breeder reactors or reprocessing. After a couple of centuries, we'll either have working fusion , vastly better mining technology, or vastly better reprocessing capability (this is already being worked on, via several approaches). That's not a major crisis, by any means - that long ago, we were still using coal-fired steam.

I suppose it depends on how you define "sustainable" though; eventually the sun will burn out and then your solar, wind, and hydro powers won't work anymore either. At the current rate of consumption though (roughly 15% of global electricity usage) we would *still* have plenty of fissionable fuel. That's sustainable enough for me.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_power#Conventional_fuel_resources
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

Re:Why?

[electricprof]

This is true in the US, but there are other countries that have built quite a few nuclear reactors. France comes to mind. I'd like to know if thorium is being used in reactors anywhere in the world? Is the US the only country with large stockpiles of thorium?

Re:Why?

[jamesswift]

Here's a report comparing the total life-cycle carbon footprint of all major methods of electricity generation.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

Wind is second lowest but basically the same as Nuclear, the lowest.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Maybe then you can explain to me why almost a dozen *NEW* Nuclear Power Plants are either, a) BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, or b) in the end phases of licensing for construction?

I'd bet all of the nuclear plants being completed now started before Obama was a senator, let alone President.

Re:Why?

[MJMullinII]

>Maybe then you can explain to me why almost a dozen *NEW* Nuclear Power Plants are either, a) BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, or b) in the end phases of licensing for construction?

I'd bet all of the nuclear plants being completed now started before Obama was a senator, let alone President.

You'd be right in before he was President, but wrong in before he was a Senator. But I still don't understand your point. You see, in the real world of business, politics means very little in making decisions. Politicians (I don't care how far left or right they are) can do very little to stop private enterprise if, and only if what private enterprise is seeking was feasible in the first place (private companies aren't above looking for handouts from the Government simply too see if they can get them, regardless if they actually need them or not).

Obama comes from the state of Illinois, WHICH HAS THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF NUCLEAR POWER IN THE COUNTRY.

The Democrats have done *nothing* to encourage or discourage Nuclear power,...and that's exactly how it should be.

I for one believe Nuclear Power can stand on it's own two feet. I do not feel it requires any special subsidy to remain competitive,...but as long as subsidies are given no one is going to send them back.

You mark my words, when "Cap and Trade" comes seriously to the floor (which most likely won't be before next year, if at all -- I myself have always thought "Cap n' Trade" to be pretty dubious and trust our healthy lobbyist to reduce it even further), provisions will be added to support Nuclear Energy.

There is simply no way to meet our targets regarding CO2 without a massive investment in Nuclear (the only possible alternative would be Solar Satellite Power, though that's a little ways off to be practical now).

But, I feeling from your posts (assuming your the same AC from before) that nothing the Democrats do will satisfy you -- aside from following the Republican mantra of worshiping big-business.

Again, you really need to stop living your life by right-wing talking points.

Re:Why?

[EdIII]

Everything is finite.

Well if we are going to get technical Everything is infinite, or at least pretty damn hard to prove that it is finite. What is certainly finite at the moment is our ability to go out and gather resources up which seems to be your point.

I think you meant to say that everything on Earth is finite, including the amount of sunlight we are going to ultimately receive.

Of course the whole argument is a little silly IMO. Sustainable to me does not imply infinite resources but simply a method that achieves homeostasis.

Nuclear power is not a sustainable method of energy production according to that definition. That does not make it environmentally unfriendly though. So what if takes thousands of years for us to exhaust nuclear fuel. It's still a heck of lot better than some of the alternatives at the moment and could lead to humans living sustainably.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the question we need to be asking is why are we not making places like IRAN use this type of fuel so they can't blow us up!!!!!!!!!

Re:Why?

[rve]

> The carbon footprint of making one 60m high wind turbine is approximately the same as the carbon footprint said wind turbine will save in fossil fuel in its lifetime.

No. Not even close. Orders of magnitude wrong.

Can you provide a link? There are a lot of those very large windmills here, but at any one time it looks like about half of them are standing still (damaged? maintenance?) I can't seem to find any unbiased figures. Google seems to favor sites by either Al Gore fans or GW-hoax believers.

I'm also interested to know how long it would take for all these solar cells on roofs to pay for themselves, given that this climate sees just over 30 sunny days a year with an average of about 1.5 hours of sun a day in the winter when most energy is needed.

Re:Why?

[Solandri]

Example calculation for mid-size (office building) solar deployment: http://greenestofthegreen.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/solar-panels-the-smallest-footprint/

- Calculates a carbon break-even point of 15 months, for a product expected to last for 25 years on the inside.

FYI, that company makes solar water heating panels. Not solar photovoltaic panels.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Orders of magnitude in which direction?

Re:Why?

[morcego]

Maybe you should read it again. Hydro has the lowest footprint.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other reason was also mentioned in the summary. You can continue making weapons with the uranium crap.

Re:Why?

[Phoghat]

And there is an infinite supply of oil?

Re:Why?

[drinkypoo]

Can you provide a link?

It's funny how you demand proof that they're making power, but you don't demand proof that they are. Hypocrite, much? Also, where is "here"? If you're in one of the classic wind power blunder areas, your input isn't worth much if you're going by what you see locally. Even if you are, the wind doesn't necessarily blow when you drive by.

Re:Why?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

There is a lot more Th than that. Try more than >1000years, and we have a lot more U around than we thought when everyone was ranting about it only lasting 100 years as well. Providing we don't do something stupid with once through fuel cycles, nuclear could take us so far into the future its would be pointless even speculating what we would have avalible to us. Hell we probably have fusors and time traveling Delorians.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Al stands to make millions off the global warming scam. He lives a life of luxury, using more energy than a dozen ordinary people, and he buys "carbon credits" from his own company. He makes the oil companies look like amateurs.

Who's the fool?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The carbon footprint of making one 60m high wind turbine is approximately the same as the carbon footprint said wind turbine will save in fossil fuel in its lifetime.

No. Not even close. Orders of magnitude wrong.

And even if the gp is not wrong, what is the carbon footprint of building a coal fired plant, and then burning coal in it? The wind turbine would still come out ahead since at least it breaks even by the gp's own (unsubstantiated) argument.

Re:Why?

[Ihmhi]

If we needed carbon fibre badly enough, hell, there's probably three or four hundred tons of it just on the hoods of cars in Newark, NJ.

Re:Why?

[Vintermann]

> It's funny how you demand proof that they're making power, but you don't demand proof that they are.

Funny, but not surprising, considering rve believes global warming is a "hoax".

Re:Why?

[maraist]

How do you speculate that greenification reduces needed energy?
Consider that as man gets wealthier he wants:
A) Air conditioning
B) Lighting
C) transportation
D) electrical appliances.

We'll simply state that we're producing a generation (myself included) that's addicted to air-conditioning compared to even a preceding generation.

On the transportation front - we're talking about plugin hybrids as being the most practical 'green car'. In my opinion, that's a good thing, but it INCREASES energy demands, not decreases them.

Technically OIL is a geo-thermal byproduct, so it's as natural as steam-veins in iceland. So the question becomes whether non-coal/oil fired transportation is more efficient on the aggregate. I'll even assume, for sake of argument, the eventual treaties and technologies which support mobile CO2 sequestration.

In other words, in an apples to apples comparison, is wind (rare-earth allocations) + power-lines + metro battery storage + AC/DC conversion + LiIon storage (more rare-earth allocations) more efficient than local-motor oil burning?

I'm talking about efficiency based on Joules of energy; not dollars - which are affected by other factors.

Re:Why?

[Vintermann]

> Can you provide a link? There are a lot of those very large windmills here, but at any one time it looks like about half of them are standing still (damaged? maintenance?) I can't seem to find any unbiased figures. Google seems to favor sites by either Al Gore fans or GW-hoax believers.

No, if you need the source to be compatible with your ideology, I don't think I can help you. I don't know my way around planet denialism much.

Re:Why?

[CCW]

Maybe you better read it again - Hydro is only lowest when you don't have to build a dam. There are a few major installations like this, but there are very few appropriate sites for it. Even some of the so-called run of river installations include dams, which would put them in the higher-carbon bracket.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother, a physicist, says:

"The description you sent is a hack and not valid as written.

Thorium is a well known fertile fuel for secondary nuclear energy production. The American Scientist, a (non-research oriented) physics journal, had a good article on this topic back in 2003 (see attached). "

Now what?

Re:Why?

[ahabswhale]

According to the Wired article, there are enough thorium reserves in the US to supply the country with power for about 1000 years. That's about as close to infinite as it gets.

Re:Why?

[rve]

Re-reading my post, I can see it was phrased confusingly. With "GW-hoax believers" I meant people who believe GW is a hoax.

I tried to google for cold hard figures about the efficiency of wind turbines or solar cells but all I could find were political sites.

Re:Why?

[Slashcrap]

Re-reading my post, I can see it was phrased confusingly. With "GW-hoax believers" I meant people who believe GW is a hoax.

I tried to google for cold hard figures about the efficiency of wind turbines or solar cells but all I could find were political sites.

The information is there, it's just that you lack the ability to put it together having never learned any type of critical thinking. You are probably literally asking Google for cold hard data on wind turbine efficiency. Basically, you dumb American. You get out.

Re:Why?

[rve]

From your style and demeanor I deduce that you are Dutch, am I right? You may kiss my Germanic bottom, rude and presumptuous xenophobe.

I'm trying to find out how long it would take for these turbines to pay for themselves without subsidies; not just counting production costs, but also considering the observation that even on these windswept coastal plains, half of them seem to be shut down or out of service at any time.

I'm also curious as to how cost effective solar cells would be without subsidies, in this climate where the sun shines only about 10% of the year.

Re:Why?

[MobyDisk]

Can someone post a link to all these super patents that make infinite batteries and cars that get 500 miles per gallon? I always hear about these patents - which are public - but I never see them. I'm also amazed that countries that don't subscribe to patent law don't build these devices. Or why the patent holders don't drop decide to start licensing those patents for absurd amounts of money and get rich while solving all the worlds ills.

Or wait.... could you really be saying that those magical patents don't actually exist?

Re:Why?

[vadim_t]

Can you provide a link? There are a lot of those very large windmills here, but at any one time it looks like about half of them are standing still (damaged? maintenance?) I can't seem to find any unbiased figures. Google seems to favor sites by either Al Gore fans or GW-hoax believers.

In other words, you're not interested in the actual numbers, but in a site that gives the numbers you want to see.

Re:Why?

[JetTredmont]

How do you speculate that greenification reduces needed energy?

By making more energy-efficient products, reducing energy waste in storage and transmission, and sourcing the energy from sustainable/renewable energy sources.

Technically OIL is a geo-thermal byproduct, so it's as natural as steam-veins in iceland. So the question becomes whether non-coal/oil fired transportation is more efficient on the aggregate. I'll even assume, for sake of argument, the eventual treaties and technologies which support mobile CO2 sequestration.

Oil is a geo-thermal byproduct? No, it's a geothermal+plant byproduct. The question is not what is "natural", but rather what is sustainable and renewable.

Oil is not being created in the earth at anywhere near the rate we are consuming it; we have blazed through millions of years of production in a few short centuries! Maybe we should look into enhancing the production of oil? Bury more plants? Yeah, that will make sense, and allow the humans living 100,000 years from now to get a little bump in oil capacity. I'm pretty sure that's too late, though.

In other words, in an apples to apples comparison, is wind (rare-earth allocations) + power-lines + metro battery storage + AC/DC conversion + LiIon storage (more rare-earth allocations) more efficient than local-motor oil burning?

I'm not sure what you mean by your "rare-earth allocations" parenthetical, but in terms of being sustainable, yes, that is absolutely more efficient. In terms of energy efficiency, small-engine burning of hydrocarbons is highly inefficient. Doesn't entirely make up for power losses during transmission, but it comes pretty darned close. Unless you start by factoring in the "efficiency" of how much wind energy is captured by a particular wind turbine, which is nonsensical (yeah, 0.01% of the wind's energy is captured, but that's both the point and irrelevant given the abundance of the wind).

Also, you "hand-waved" away carbon sequestration: will that NOT affect the efficiency of small internal combustion engines? Presumably you are imagining some sort of a system which will capture all the CO2 going out the tailpipe like catalytic converters work on Nitrous oxides to send out N2? I'm not sure. CO2 is highly stable, moreso than the various nitruous oxides, and it will take more than a simple catalyst to "onburn" it down to pure carbons; even if such a thing existed, you then have to deal with accumulation and elimination of that quantity (which wouldn't necessarily affect overall efficiency if it happens at the same time you pump gas, but if you are allowing it to accumulate and get cleaned out every year or six months on an oil-change-like schedule, you'll have problems).

Also, you didn't speak of liquid hydrocarbon efficiency losses just from transport and storage: we put a lot of complex hydrocarbons into the air just by evaporation while moving it from refinery to motor cylinder. Obviously this has environmental impact, but if we put environmental blinders on and just assume someone will solve that problem for us, it also equates to a few additional percentage points of energy lost.

Also, you didn't speak of liquid hydrocarbon refining losses. Those oil refineries don't run on hopes and wishes: they take a significant amount of energy (both in the form of electricity and in the form of burned product). They also don't start with one barrel of oil and output precisely the cuts of gasoline and jet fuel the consumers want: there is energy wasted there due to marketability and by-product production (by-products which are significantly less in-demand than the main products ... which is why they are called by-products ...)

Re:Why?

[sabt-pestnu]

Looked up your study. It describes the kWh cost of manufacturing. However, there are several things missing.

1) any information (outside of the words "industry accepted simulations") on how the figures they use were arrived at. ...Do they include mining/smelting costs? Do they include environmental cleanup of same?
2) any accounting for equipment maintenance.

Wind turbines aren't things you just plunk down, plug in, and replace in 25 years. Nor are solar cells. And more, are they talking about maximum lifespan for the product, or mean time between (replacement) failures?

From the description, it sounds like if it doesn't involve an electricity cost, they don't account for it. All in all, the page you refer to sounds more like a sales pitch than a scientific study. I find it unsatisfying. I don't, though, have anything more satisfying at hand.

Re:Why?

[Hurricane78]

Are we thinking in black and white again?

Yes, the sun is finite. And silicon is finite. Aluminium too. But that is something entirely different than fossil oil or uranium.

Wanna know what you need, for ” in terms of humanity ” unlimited power?

- Mirrors made out of silicon (glass) and aluminium), on an aluminium frame.
- A glass tube filled with water, partially protected with aluminium or iron.
- Iron/aluminium/etc turbines and cables.

Done. As much energy as humanity could possibly use. Times some huge number. Times the ability to put such power plants into space.

Why not building them?

[BeerCat]

It's easier to prevaricate and then blame your political successors for lack of action than it is to decide to just get on with it.

Especially when there is no spare money to procure a wholly new reactor type.

Re:Why not building them?

[thsths]

> Especially when there is no spare money to procure a wholly new reactor type.

Well that is the problem - and it is mainly because of safety regulations - which are a political area. We all know that the conventional nuclear reactor has a lot of safety issues, but it is certified! Getting a Thorium reactor to the same level of documentation and acceptance would be an expensive and lengthy process. As long as most countries have a de facto moratorium on nuclear reactor construction, there is no money in pushing new technology.

And man - on a technical level Thorium is so much superior that there is really no contest at all.

20+ years

[Colin Smith]

Don't expect any thorium based reactors any time soon.
 

Re:20+ years

[JustOK]

or, no sooner than 20 years.

Re:20+ years

[Bigjeff5]

India has Thorium reactors today.

Re:20+ years

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again the US' corrupt status-quo drags the country down.

Re:20+ years

[Anonymous Coward]

India has Thorium reactors today.

Wrong..if it had it wouldn't need the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Perhaps the industry doesn't want a new process

[gomiam]

They have already recovered their inversions in uranium technologies. Oh, and I think thorium doesn't provide weapon grade subproducts, does it?

IMHO, this technology will finally come forward from outside the nuclear energy industry.

Re:Perhaps the industry doesn't want a new process

[Anonymous Coward]

Buffoonery. It's business, pure and simple.

We have an established process and no one wants to buy that system. There is no reason to build a new system, which will still generate wastes which no one wants in their back yard, and small amounts of weapons grade material which no one wants, and basically no energy producer is willing to fund for fear that they will be betting their entire company on a system that will be hindered.

Progress-energy and others have spent a ton of money only to be held up by regulators (NRC) for 24 months! Figure the vig on a 5 Billion dollar loan for 24 months! This hold-up is PARTIALLY because of the political fear that nuclear is BAD. These power producers are borrowing BILLIONS of dollars and paying INTEREST every day on these dollars to build a very long term system, only to be held up by all manner of interests (Federal, State, and local).

You want nuclear of any kind? You need to guarantee some loans. Nuclear simply isn't politically correct. Period.

Simply put, it MAY BE the safest power system that the planet has to offer, and no one wants it because it is "nuclear". NIMBY. Average Joe doesn't want it. Period.

It won't matter if it is plutonium, uranium, thorium, pebble bed, liquid fuel, gaseous fuel, or run by fairy dust! People are scared of nuclear, and it will take a ton of long term education the change that. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. "

And by the way, I know a couple of aspiring nuclear engineers who would love to work on thorium reactors, but there are no jobs in nuclear right this second. Hiring freezes abound. Also, you can build a perfectly good bomb from Thorium by-products. U-233 Teapot MET 1957 20+kt bomb anyone? And you can build a perfectly safe reactor from highly enriched U-235. Or plutonium. Finally, you can build a suitable explosive device from your water heater! Go watch Mythbusters and scale up according to need.

Pedal your conspiracies elsewhere.

Your humble senior reactor operator.

Re:Perhaps the industry doesn't want a new process

[Ihmhi]

Finally, you can build a suitable explosive device from your water heater! Go watch Mythbusters and scale up according to need.

As I recall, it was less of a boom and more of a whoosh. That is, the thing didn't explode so much as one end of the water heater exploded and launched through the model "house" like a rocket about 200 feet into the air. That's not much of a bomb.

As Adam said, "That's a rocket, my friend - not a bomb."

Re:Perhaps the industry doesn't want a new process

[gomiam]

We have an established process and no one wants to buy that system. There is no reason to build a new system, which will still generate wastes which no one wants in their back yard, and small amounts of weapons grade material which no one wants,

Then I guess that composting to obtain methane is senseless, since we already have an established process for consuming fossil fuels. A current process not being wanted is _not_ a reason to devise a new system if it is better (which thorium seems to be, as far as I have read).

Simply put, it MAY BE the safest power system that the planet has to offer,

Excuse me if I consider having radioactive products with a semi-life ranging on the thousands of years doesn't makes me feel specially safe.

You want nuclear of any kind? You need to guarantee some loans. Nuclear simply isn't politically correct.

_Nuclear uranium fission_ may not be politically correct (France might disagree though). Other nuclear energy generation processes don't seem to have such a stigma on them (perhaps because they haven't yet had the opportunity of creating problems).

And by the way, I know a couple of aspiring nuclear engineers who would love to work on thorium reactors, but there are no jobs in nuclear right this second.

There are no jobs in a lot of fields right this second. I think they call it crisis.

Also, you can build a perfectly good bomb from Thorium by-products.

AFAIK, thorium has a lower yield of plutonium (among other by-products). You can build a bomb, but it will take a bit more time. But yes, I was mistaken on that (basically, the only so-so assertion I made).

Pedal your conspiracies elsewhere.

There are no conspiracies being peddled here. I am applying analogies (perhaps without base) from other known cases. Please stop looking for enemies where there are none.

Re:Perhaps the industry doesn't want a new process

[rift321]

Did you just quote "Men In Black?"

Outdated

[kjart]

Pffft - nobody uses Thorium anymore.

/duck

declining oil production

[Colin Smith]

Even Iran wants nuclear power for this reason.

You sure it isn't because their oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly?

 

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

"You sure it isn't because their oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly?"

Yes. I'm pretty sure... I've seen the actual raw data on oil reserves for that region while consulting in the Middle East. They're not peaking for another 200 years or so at the projected outputs.

They've all read the peak oil books and are laughing all the way to the bank.

(posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

Re:declining oil production

[FooAtWFU]

That's probably a point, but with the fervor of their anti-Israeli rhetoric, only a fool would ignore the possibility that they're after a nuclear weapon.

Re:declining oil production

[WindBourne]

Lets assume that was the case. Then why worry about creating the fuel, even though it is easy to get, prior to building your first reactor? Seriously, their behavior is not one that is worried about energy, but about other issues. Even if their oil has peaked, it will be many decades before a real impact is made. Instead, they should be worried about building up other industries, than about building enriched uranium and plutonium.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Iran wants nuclear power for this reason.

You sure it isn't because their oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly?

Yes, I'm sure. Anybody who thinks Iran is developing nuclear technology simply for the power is delusional. Energy production is a helpful byproduct, but it's not the primary motivation. I don't blame Iran for wanting nukes. If I were them, I'd want 'em too. Iraq didn't have nukes, and we invaded them. North Korea has nukes, and we leave them alone. Iran is acting in what they see as their national self interest -- something we always maintain is our right, world opinion be damned (an attitude I fully support). We shouldn't be surprised that Iran is pursuing nukes. Similarly, Iran shouldn't be surprised when the US and/or Israel attacks their nuclear facilities. Personally, I expect the attack will take the form of sabotage rather than air strikes.

Re:declining oil production

[theguyfromsaturn]

And I think I remember a report from a few weeks back on BBC saying how we have been consuming more Uranium in existing nuclear plants than we have been producing... if it hadn't been for stockpiles we wouldn't have been able to run currently existing nuclear plants. It is very coincidental that we not speak of this "alternative fuel".

It is also a very bad news when people talk about the "boom in tar sands" as a good thing. Tar sands are expensive (energy wise) to exploit, and wouldn't be put into production in any kind of massive scale if better sources of oil existed. It is a very bad indicator of the state of the energy supplies.

I've noticed that ever since global oil production peaked in 2008, there has been a "flurry of green initiatives" in the news worldwide. Under the pretense of showing increased concern about the environment, I have no doubt that it reflects more a state of panic of the higher ups that the warnings so long ignored have come to be true.

Sadly any alternative source of energy, requires time to develop and deploy, and will itself become an energy sink during that development/deployment phase. That is why those who first warned of peak oil, and general limits to growth, also mentioned that it was necessary to start preparing for the peak BEFORE it happened, one or even two decades before if possible. The current salvation is the slowed down economy, but it won't last forever, and demand will soon hit the ceiling again... which will likely cause further economic hardships, which in turn will have a direct influence on the development and deployment of alternatives.

It's a catch 22 scenario. I just wish we'd had 40 years forewarning so we could prepare. Wait, we actually did. And we haven't even started talking about the population problem yet. Maybe if we keep ignoring it, that problem will also go away without any kind of hardship for anybody. (and yes both problems WILL take care of themselves even if we ignore them, just like global warming will too, in the same way that mother nature always uses to take care of such problems... the human species, along with many others, may not like how she does things, however, which is why maybe we could have tried to engineer our way out of it by alternate means).

But who am I to talk? I'm sure that our government/corporate overlords, under the wise guidance of conventional economists know better. So no need to fear.

Re:declining oil production

[Colin Smith]

hen why worry about creating the fuel, even though it is easy to get, prior to building your first reactor?

National security? If you rely on someone else, you are left at their mercy. They can just turn off your economy. This is actually a problem which Europe is facing with respect to Russian gas.

Even if their oil has peaked, it will be many decades before a real impact is made.

Declining revenues happen immediately, how would you fancy a 30 year recession? How long would it take to build a Nuclear based infrastructure? It'll take decades.

Instead, they should be worried about building up other industries

Without energy, how would they run these other industries? Everything is based on energy, our primary energy source just now is oil.

Iran may well be after the bomb, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're doing anything more than planning a move away from oil. i.e. more foresight than most western governments.
 

Re:declining oil production

[mweather]

National security? If you rely on someone else, you are left at their mercy. They can just turn off your economy.

Bingo. Iran doesn't want another country to do to them what they did to the West in the 70s.

Re:declining oil production

[CdBee]

Well given that they're just down the street from a state with a serious racial prejudice problem and nuclear weapons, I can hardly blame them for that. As far as I''m concerned either both Israel and Iran should have nukes, or neither should. Imbalances in that part of the world usually lead to genocide

Re:declining oil production

[Darkness404]

Except for the fact that Israel is accountable to the free world. If Israel does something to make the rest of the world mad, they suffer for it. They took some heat for some of their attacks on Gaza. Really, Israel using nuclear weapons will be much more justified than the Soviet Union or the US having or using them. Israel has been attacked over and over again, is a small country and has very few allies in that region of the world.

Re:declining oil production

[FooAtWFU]

Oil is the primary energy source, mostly due to cars and trucks and such, but coal and natural gas (combined) power just as much, and the US has lots of both. In a bad enough oil crisis, the US could ramp up coal production and convert cars (and furnaces) to run off of compressed natural gas (which is common enough in niche markets, mostly big fleets).

Re:declining oil production

[Nutria]

North Korea has nukes, and we leave them alone.

Nah. It's because Seoul (with 25% of ROK's population) is 30km from the DMZ, which means that it's within reach of large artillery and MLRS/Katyusha rockets.

Re:declining oil production

[Darkness404]

You have to also see it from the side of everyone else who isn't Iran. You have an unstable country, a country where protesters are routinely shot. A president that many disagree with both his policies and question if he was really elected. And who in the world would trust a leader who says these quotes...

They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet.

Basically, he denies that the holocaust happened. And attacks those who have tolerance of religion or the lack of.

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You should know that this slogan, this goal, can certainly be achieved.

Basically, not only does he think Israel doesn't have the right to exist, but apparently neither does America.

In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. [...] In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this.

And he not only denies gay rights, but denies that there were even homosexuals in Iran. Even America didn't deny the fact there were black people who were being oppressed. Some might have said that they weren't being oppressed but no one would be as stupid as to say that there is no such thing as black people.

So in light of a politically unstable region, a leader who has made stupid and dangerous comments, how can we say letting them have nuclear power/weapons is a good thing? If Iran wants nuclear power, how about they let the developed nations build and supervise the infrastructure until Iran becomes stable?

Re:declining oil production

[Nadaka]

An Israel armed with nukes can destroy a couple Iranian cities. An Iran armed with nukes could wipe Israel off the map, and that is exactly what they have publicly stated their goals to be. The only question is, would they be willing to sacrifice the Dome of the Rock and a couple Iranian cities to do it? Maybe I am just a horrible pessimist, but I don't like those odds.

Re:declining oil production

[Nexus7]

How exactly did Israel suffer and how exactly are they accountable, any more than Iran? They weren't accountable when they got nukes, and once they did, they became even less so. They ensure Palestine is essentially a ghetto without real blowback. Nukes gave them the same non-accountability and irresponsibility than Pakistan got with their nukes.

I'm no fan of the Iranian govt, but neither am I of the Israeli one. Instead of teetering on edge all the time about when Israel is going to attack Iran's wannabe nuke facilities with rockets, I'd rather they have MAD. Actually I'd rather there were a regulated peace, but no one (and I mean the US govt here) wants that, apparently.

By the way, it's irrelevant how many allies it has "in that part" of the world. They have the only ally that counts.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, mental imbalances do!

Re:declining oil production

[sycodon]

"Killed almost nobody"

I guess that's not as big deal unless you are one of those almost nobodies.

That anyone can defend Hamas, et al is just stupefying.

Re:declining oil production

[Nutria]

I'd rather they have MAD.

That only works when the opponents are relatively sane, and don't actually want to die.

Unfortunately, religious zealots aren't all that sane, and 72 virgins can seem pretty tempting when your wife is a cow wearing a big black bag.

Re:declining oil production

[Tellarin]

While I can see the validity of your main point about Iran being "unstable" and not democratic, the way you present your argument has at least two deep flaws.

You have to also see it from the side of everyone else who isn't Iran.

Like every other country in the region that is not Israel? Are they as concerned as the west about Iran's nuclear program? What about their opinion on the fact that Israel secretly produced nuclear weapons and still has them?

And he not only denies gay rights, but denies that there were even homosexuals in Iran. Even America didn't deny the fact there were black people who were being oppressed. Some might have said that they weren't being oppressed but no one would be as stupid as to say that there is no such thing as black people.

Denying human rights to anyone is unacceptable. And of course denying the existence of people with different sexual orientations, when it is a well know fact of life, is stupid. But your analogy is simply wrong. One of the reasons why no one who practiced slavery (or oppressed black people) would deny their existence was simply because they treated black people as less than people. In their view, they were not equals.

Ah, BTW, a country leader making stupid and dangerous comments is in no way an Iranian privilege.

Re:declining oil production

[Cheech Wizard]

"You sure it isn't because their oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly?"

Yes. I'm pretty sure... I've seen the actual raw data on oil reserves for that region while consulting in the Middle East. They're not peaking for another 200 years or so at the projected outputs.

They've all read the peak oil books and are laughing all the way to the bank.

(posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

Posting anonymously because it's bull. 200 years to peak oil there? Maybe if they don't sell any.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

It has few allies because they don't belong there, have developed batshit crazy racist politics which they base on the we-had-the-shoah argument, and don't have anything to do with the free world at all.

Re:declining oil production

[Cheech Wizard]

Except for the fact that Israel is accountable to the free world.

Ha! I'll believe it when they invite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in and give them full access to all their nuclear facilities, and fully acknowledge their nuclear capabilities (for example, how many nuclear bombs do they have?). Israel is nothing more than land stolen from other countries after WW II and supported by the US (not only in technology but with billions of US$ in handouts). Israel only exists because the US pays for it to survive. Without the US taxpayers money and the US military support, Israel would shrivel and die.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, BTW, a country leader making stupid and dangerous comments is in no way an Iranian privilege.

I hate people who do this, but I actually had to stop and think about this sentence for a min. Perhaps "Ah, BTW, there are plenty of other country leaders making stupid and dangerous comments."

Re:declining oil production

[Sir_Sri]

You are under the misguided impression Iran's biggest enemy in the region is israel. It is not. It has yankee troops on two borders, and has the Saudi's to contend with for leadership as the per-eminent Muslim state. The rhetoric against israel is just that, rhetoric with some token proxies causing a fuss to make it look like they're doing something. The real prize is to destabilize saudi, who regularly publicly toy with the idea of being nuclear armed.

Who do you think the saudi's are buying all the F15's to protect themselves against exactly? Not Israel. And until the yanks are out of Iraq it's an arms race between Saudi and Iran to see who gets to seize control of the place the moment the last yankee boot is out of there. The iranians and saudi's have been and will perpetually be at each others throats. Iran is too relatively powerful (compared to Saudi) to be ignored, but too small compared to the Sunni world to risk ticking them off too much - and they need a strong defence to prevent the Sunni's from trying to wipe the idol worshipers out to deal with this problem once and for all.

Complaining about israel is the middle east equivalent of westerners complaining taxes are too high, every now and then someone comes along and makes some token changes to policy to win political support, but basically everyone knows the game and is not out to rock the boat too much. Admittedly there is a real danger than you'll get some idiot in charge who actually believes all of the rhetoric, but that is not presently the case with Iran.

Re:declining oil production

[AigariusDebian]

US will veto anything that tries to punish Israel on the world stage, so no - Israel has no accountability. Most countries would have been taken over by NATO Peace keeper forces decades ago for all the crap that Israel does.

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

and nobody who wants to die rises through a power structure to lead a nation.

Only people who like, and want, power get there. they do not want their power base to evaporate, nor do they want to die.

You are never going to have to worry about a national suicide bombing.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

But so what if they really nuked each other to bits?

The USA can then walk in with rad suits and help the world keep the oil flowing, for some compensation of course...

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

An Israel armed with nukes can destroy a couple Iranian cities. An Iran armed with nukes could wipe Israel off the map, and that is exactly what they have publicly stated their goals to be.

That is not true. The official government of Iran has publicly stated no such thing.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the numbers of people killed. It's overwhelmingly Israel that's doing the killing. It's over 100:1.

And I'm not calling Hamas good guys. I'm just pointing out that Israel IS a bad guy here. There aren't any good guys in this one.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

So I find it interesting that this became a Jew bashing hot topic. Get over your selves and you anti-Semitic bull. The Israelis make mistakes but the Palestinians are keeping them selves back. Has anyone ever noticed if things are too peaceful over there who starts everything back up. Let me give you a hint. It's not the Israelis.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather they have MAD.

That only works when the opponents are relatively sane, and don't actually want to die.

Unfortunately, religious zealots aren't all that sane, and 72 virgins can seem pretty tempting when your wife is a cow wearing a big black bag.

It also only works if your opponent also believes it to be MAD. The Soviets did not think so for quite a long time.

Re:declining oil production

[Taxman415a]

That is why those who first warned of peak oil, and general limits to growth, also mentioned that it was necessary to start preparing for the peak BEFORE it happened, one or even two decades before if possible. The current salvation is the slowed down economy, but it won't last forever, and demand will soon hit the ceiling again... which will likely cause further economic hardships, which in turn will have a direct influence on the development and deployment of alternatives.

Of course we should have started preparing long ago, but the basics of a political system are that politicians work to make themselves appear to be doing good and that usually means short term. Maybe you live in the US if you refer to the sudden flurry of green initiatives. Europe has been working on it much more steadily for years. But also you're missing the very basics of the economics here that may mitigate some of the worst effects of running out of petroleum. There are several moderators that make it unlikely that running out of oil will be a sudden and catastrophic shock. One is the demand influence that you mention. When costs of goods go up, people will indeed face some hardships, but that will reduce demand and act as one moderator on the catastrophic drop. The other is that oil is not likely to run out suddenly, it's just going to get more expensive, which acts as another moderator to a sudden and catastrophic decline. The cost goes up, the quantity demanded goes down, and it lasts a little longer. At the same time of each of these effects, alternative energy sources become more competitive. And the estimates for alternative fossil fuel sources, though they of course vary, are rather large which makes it unlikely there will be a major crash, just an expensive adjustment. How expensive and how much hardship there will be depends greatly on how fast cheap oil runs out and how fast cheaper processes for developing other fossil fuels and alternative energies are developed. On the other hand, expensive adjustment does mean opportunity to make profits, so your esteemed corporate overlords may just be able to exploit that profit opportunity if they can be the one that comes up with the competitive process. That's speaking charitably of course. They'd rather corner the market and create a monopoly, and our and our short sighted government's job is to avoid that.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that Israel is accountable to the free world. If Israel does something to make the rest of the world mad, they suffer for it. They took some heat for some of their attacks on Gaza. Really, Israel using nuclear weapons will be much more justified than the Soviet Union or the US having or using them. Israel has been attacked over and over again, is a small country and has very few allies in that region of the world.

You reap what you sow. Instead of focusing on the number of times they have been attacked (or expelled from a country) ask yourself WHY they have they been attacked. Ask yourself "how would I (Israel) react if I was treated this way (Palestinians)?" Ever heard of the "Samson Option"?

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is the primary energy source, mostly due to cars and trucks and such, but coal and natural gas (combined) power just as much, and the US has lots of both. In a bad enough oil crisis, the US could ramp up coal production and convert cars (and furnaces) to run off of compressed natural gas (which is common enough in niche markets, mostly big fleets).

Most commercial fertilizer (nitrogen specifically) comes from oil AFAIK, and so a lot of food production depends on it. Let's not forget all the various things made of plastic as well--how many things are made of only wood and steel?

Oil-based products have made their into every nook and cranny of our civilization.

Re:declining oil production

[BrokenHalo]

An Iran armed with nukes could wipe Israel off the map, and that is exactly what they have publicly stated their goals to be...

...That is not true. The official government of Iran has publicly stated no such thing.

No, indeed. The official and often-reiterated objective is to "drive the Jews into the sea". That's not quite the same thing, but it's close enough. Not that I enjoy taking Israel's side on that point; I am very tired of hearing Israel claiming the position of underdog while being the most zealous in pursuing aggressive action against its neighbours.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

You reap what you sow. Instead of focusing on the number of times they have been attacked (or expelled from a country) ask yourself WHY they have they been attacked. Ask yourself "how would I (Israel) react if I was treated this way (Palestinians)?" Ever heard of the "Samson Option"?

Re:declining oil production

[Lakitu]

You undermine your own argument with this statement:

Imbalances in that part of the world usually lead to genocide.

Israel has allegedly had nuclear weapons capability for decades, decades, which, you may have noticed, have gone by without the use of nuclear weapons. If imbalances lead to genocide, and there has been no nuclear genocide, then it seems to be balanced. Iran acquiring nuclear weapons may shift the geopolitical situation into a position of imbalance.

Any impartial observer should be able to look at the situation and see that the risk of a nuclear-ized war can only increase or remain the same if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

if you're talking about genocide of Palestinians, that may be due to a huge imbalance in conventional weapons.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

based on information that has been brought forward by a few different sources, it's safe to assume that Israel has had possession of nukes as far back as the 70s.

yet... you haven't heard anything about israel testing them, or threatening anyone with using them.

You should listen more closly to Iran leader rehetoric. They see israel as an offshoot of the US, NOT THE OTHER WAY ARROUND. they publicly refare to the US is "the big Satan" while Israeli is only the "The Little Satan".

If you think that Iran, with it's current regime, is a threat to Israel alone. I have a few bridges to sell you.

Re:declining oil production

[Nutria]

and nobody who wants to die rises through a power structure to lead a nation.

The one exception to that rule will make life miserable for the other 6.1bn.

Re:declining oil production

[that this is not und]

They ensure Palestine is essentially a ghetto without real blowback.

You're confusing the matter. The Arab States ensure that the Palestinians remain in ghettos. Little holding camps within the Arab States that the refugees cannot escape from. They do this because they view the Palestinian refugees as a weapon to use against the West.

It's an appalling situation, and the Arab States are responsible for it. 'Palestine' didn't even exist as a nation. Just a bunch of arabs who lived in that area.

Re:declining oil production

[that this is not und]

Actually, there are nut-cases who have risen to lead nations. Hitler was one. There were a number of them in the Eastern European countries during the cold war. The theocracy running Iran is another.

Re:declining oil production

[that this is not und]

There cannot be a genocide of 'Palestinians' because 'Palestinian' is not a nationality in the sense the term 'Genocide' is normally used with. The Arabs are a nomadic people, and they live scattered all across the Middle East. The ones who are conveniently called 'The Palestinians' are just a group of them who were pushed off land that is now Israel. They would have assimilated into the Arab population of the other countries they were pushed into, except that those countries have kept them locked up in Refugee Camps for decades now to use as political hostages. The Arab people will not, and could not, be wiped out as the result of the death of every living 'Palestinian.' No genocide is possible.

Re:declining oil production

[that this is not und]

You put too much emphasis on this as a Sunni/Shiite struggle. That is not the demarcation line.

It is a Persian/Arab struggle. Two actual nationalities are in struggle. It's not an inter-Islamic conflict.

Re:declining oil production

[ThePhilips]

Posting anonymously because it's bull. 200 years to peak oil there? Maybe if they don't sell any.

IIRC, there is an embargo on Iran selling oil. In other words: yes, they do not sell any.

Re:declining oil production

[junglee_iitk]

Last I checked Iranians weren't training terrorists. And it is well known that Iran has actually not supported Hezbollah, contrary to popular American rhetoric. Actual case study shows that Iran is not anti-Israel, but anti-USA, and its current unpopular regime uses "west is bad". Iranians are not suicidal virgin seekers.
The real reason is that Israel is at odds with middle east, and cannot see another rising power.

Unfortunately, religious zealots aren't all that sane, and 72 virgins can seem pretty tempting when your wife is a cow wearing a big black bag.

You don't deserve a reply.

Re:declining oil production

[that this is not und]

So Cheech Wizard is your given name?

What's your street address?

Re:declining oil production

[MrHanky]

Israel has never been held accountable for any of their crimes. The U.S. will always make sure to veto any UN resolution that doesn't blame the victims^W^W^W criticise the Palestinian authorities equally as Israel. Israel does, on the other hand, have a somewhat stable government that won't be overthrown at the first opportunity. That makes their nuclear weapons slightly more secure.

Re:declining oil production

[ThePhilips]

Things were never peaceful there.

Or rather: if it's not covered by western mass media, it doesn't mean it is peaceful.

If one forcefully sends hundred thousands people into essentially an exile, there would be never happy ending to the story.

It's not the Israelis.

We tend to side with Israelis because culturally we are close. But our knowledge of what's going on other side of fence is very limited. And Israeli's rhetoric isn't that much better compared to say populists like Ahmadinejad.

In the end, Israelis just as guilty.

Re:declining oil production

[misexistentialist]

Iranians are not suicidal virgin seekers.

They have demonstrated a propensity for mass-suicide in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij#Origins

Re:declining oil production

[dheltzel]

While you have a good point, the situation now is that one country has an established capability and the other is building that capability and engaging in hostile rhetoric at the same time. That seems suicidal to me. I fully expect that one day, Israel will get scared and make a first strike on Iran, and since they will only get one shot (due to the public outcry from the rest of the world), it will be a definitive attack. It would be hard for any thinking person to say that Iran didn't bring that on themselves, but I would grieve for the many in Iran who are made to suffer because of the stupidity of their leaders.

It seems almost a certainty to me that the Middle East will erupt in a nuclear war at some point. No one there is willing to compromise and they all think that they have the moral high ground, a very dangerous opinion for political leaders to have.

Re:declining oil production

[Nutria]

Iranians are not suicidal virgin seekers.

You don't become the leader of a theocracy by being moderate.

The real reason is that Israel is at odds with middle east

Being a tiny sliver of a nation, surrounded by enemies (do you not remember how many times Israel has been invaded?) who vastly outnumber you and hate your guts does tend to generate well-justified paranoia.

and cannot see another rising power.

Sure they see another rising power. With missile to reach Israel and "soon" nukes to attach to them.

From what I've read (not on FNC), most Iranians are not anti-US, but they are firmly anti-Israel.

Re:declining oil production

[Durandal64]

Except for the fact that Israel is accountable to the free world.

The United States has never threatened to yank the Israeli Defense Fund, and if it did so, it would be an empty threat. They enjoy an accountability-free existence. Sure, Europe pisses and moans, but the United States' veto power on the UN Security Council virtually guarantees that there will never be any UN sanctions on Israel.

Oh, and interesting factoid. No Israeli soldier has ever been prosecuted for the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Ever.

Re:declining oil production

[NouberNou]

You realize that by most accounts the Israelis have a fairly large nuclear weapons stockpile. Somewhere in the 400 warhead area. Thats more warheads than China has deployed (roughly half). I believe this information is from the NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Council) who are pretty credible with their research.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be naive, Israel does not hold itself accountable to anyone!

They continue to leech off the US and Europe because of their massive guilttrip induced by past antisemitism

How many payments has Israel made to service their huge foreign debt? Zero, nada... And the US does not do anything to collect on it, compared to what they have done to keep Latin America and Africa bankrupt.

Re:declining oil production

[Tellarin]

I agree with you about defending Hamas, but after reading the anon post I think it was not a defense of any group.

It looks more like criticism (even if badly worded) of how badly Israel reacted to the rockets, having killed many civilians, and there was practically no backslash from the international community.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather they have MAD

MAD only works when you know who nuked you.

It was easy when it was USA/USSR because nukes had to be dropped by huge bombers or launched at the tip of a rocket.

Now the technology exists to make something small enough to walk across a border.
(in fact, given the relatively poor rocket technology in Iran, this is a more likely scenario)

Re:declining oil production

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That anyone can defend Hamas, et al is just stupefying.

Once you realize that for many people their ideology is much more important than the very lives of others, it stops being stupefying. It starts being something else, though. Of course if "not killing others" took precedence of fake but "lofty" ideals we wouldn't have many greens, lefties or even muslims (well you sure as hell wouldn't have any "political muslims", which is presumed to be somehow different from just plain "muslims", though no-one ever cares to specify different how exactly).

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot.

Just get the US to demand Israel to make payments in their massive foreign debt and you'll see them become a third world country in a heartbeat.

Re:declining oil production

[asaz989]

What genocide of Palestinians? Four decades of occupation and the Palestinian population has grown by several times. Economic strangulation, the lack of independence, low-level war - yes, this all happens, but genocide is a wildly inappropriate description of what's going on in the Occupied Territories.

Re:declining oil production

[sycodon]

I believe that Hamas and their buddies have much more responsibility for civilian deaths than does Israel.

When you launch attacks from occupied civilian dwellings, you have to expect to be hit back. They deliberately put their civilian population in jeopardy and then whine about civilian casualties.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

I resent your racist remarks against all religions. We all know WHAT religion those 72 virgins refers to. Why oh why can't you just say it ? None of the other major religions are half as cruel, so it is very important to take these bastards to task for what their religion prescribes.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so true.

But who am I to talk? I'm sure that our government/corporate overlords, under the wise guidance of conventional economists know better. So no need to fear.

Maybe the solution is called Technocracy. If I knew how to start a global revolution, I would do it right now.

Re:declining oil production

[cyn1c77]

Well given that they're just down the street from a state with a serious racial prejudice problem and nuclear weapons, I can hardly blame them for that. As far as I''m concerned either both Israel and Iran should have nukes, or neither should. Imbalances in that part of the world usually lead to genocide

By your logic, we should give Iraq nukes too. I can't believe that you think it is a good idea for a state that publicly declares that it is going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a weapon of mass destruction.

Would you give me a knife if I told you that I was going to stab you and your entire family in your sleep?

No one would have a problem with Iran developing nukes if they were promoting Middle Eastern peace, had happy citizens, and respecting human rights. Instead, they are trying to (1) derail Iraq's stability to promote their Shi'ite interests, (2) ignoring their electoral process so that their dictatorship can stay in control, (3) beating and raping their own citizens in the process, AND (4) calling for extermination of a different religion and race.

With that type of behavior, the only type of nuclear weapon Iran currently deserves is one launched AT them, aimed at Tehran when all of their leaders are present. Maybe that will be different in the future if, at a minimum, they can evolve sufficiently as a nation to rise above religious bigotry, because no one is going to let the Holocaust reoccur again anytime soon.

Re:declining oil production

[couchslug]

"Well given that they're just down the street from a state with a serious racial prejudice problem"

Muslims are not a "race", neither are Arabs. It's Semite vs. Semite, plus various imported non-Semites.

"As far as I''m concerned either both Israel and Iran should have nukes, or neither should. Imbalances in that part of the world usually lead to genocide"

Please cite examples of actual genocide and not the normal state of low-level recreational violence.

Re:declining oil production

[floop]

Independent analysis of your idiotic statement http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Oil.html

Re:declining oil production

[umghhh]

Even assuming that the Iranian militias and revolutionary guards do not deserve (just yet) to be called terrorists and they technically speaking do not train Hezbollah but pay their bills only then their president still threw threats at some occupying force to be wiped out from the face of earth. So what did you check exactly?

Re:declining oil production

[Shark]

From what I've read (not on FNC), most Iranians are not anti-US, but they are firmly anti-Israel.

You are both wrong. Some Iranians are anti-US, some are anti-Israel, some are both... But the vast majority just want to live their lives normally without governments (foreing *and* domestic) messing it all up for them.

Same could be said about the general population of just about any country with international news. There are anti-US Brits and anti-Israel Canadians. The likelihood of them becoming so-called terrorists typically has a lot to do with how many family members they lost to a bombing or other attack from either country than religious zealotry. So not very high in Canada, but pretty damn high in Afghanistan or Palestine.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* stupid and dangerous comments? Questions about whether he was really elected? Walks all over civil liberties and freedom? Are we talking about bush here or the Iranian leader?

Re:declining oil production

[WindBourne]

National security? If you rely on someone else, you are left at their mercy. They can just turn off your economy. This is actually a problem which Europe is facing with respect to Russian gas.

Agreed. EU is in a WORLD of hurt because of some really bad choices (America has made equally bad ones).
HOWEVER, when you are developing an egg and a chicken, the question is, why develop a fuel cycle, when in fact, you have LIMITED amounts of fuel? IOW, if they are depending on Uranium for energy, they have less than 20 years worth. IOW, they will have ultimately depend on other nations for their uranium. OTH, the amount of enriched uranium for bomb making would make several hundreds. And oddly, they are not trying to secure more uranium to power their fuel plant.

Declining revenues happen immediately, how would you fancy a 30 year recession? How long would it take to build a Nuclear based infrastructure? It'll take decades.
All the more reason to develop the POWER PLANTS first before building fuel cycle that you do not have the supply to last for long.

Without energy, how would they run these other industries? Everything is based on energy, our primary energy source just now is oil.
Iran may well be after the bomb, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're doing anything more than planning a move away from oil. i.e. more foresight than most western governments.
Actually, other than transportation, the majority of energy is from Coal, not oil. Oil is imported heavily for its other uses, namely, plastics, Organics, fertilizers, chemical stock. How many burn Oil for electricity? Relatively little.

No, there used to be a lot of doubt in my mind, but it is slowly being erased as Iran's logic and actions are more and more against doing domestic energy and instead, using it for other neferious uses. The problem that we have is that nations like China do not care, and EU as well as Japan are still big buyers of their oil. All of us need to quit using Iran for their oil. And yes, it is easier said than done. But combined with issues about AGW, it is not just possible, it needs to happen sooner, not later.

Re:declining oil production

[Lakitu]

I agree, I was speculating on what the parent (to my reply) was referring to. That post used the word genocide and later referred to Israel's nuclear arsenal, saying that Iran needed nuclear weapons in order to fix the imbalance causing a genocide.

My point was that there is no genocide being caused by nuclear weapons, so to use it as a justification for Iranian production of nuclear material is wrong. If an imbalance in power is causing anything, that anything is caused mostly by a far superior conventional military.

Re:declining oil production

[dave420]

That's all they can do when combat is so asymmetrical. Or do you expect them to fight for something they believe in by standing out in the open and getting shredded by jets, drones, tanks, etc.?

Re:declining oil production

[dave420]

Peaceful != Right. The Palestinians are still being occupied and treated like shit. Israel, at least, holds the upper hand and is quite content when there is peace, as they have everything they want. The Palestinians, however, are still fighting for their freedom. It's not anti-Semitic to say that. Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Judaism, even though that is a convenient excuse to whip out when the argument's not going one's way.

Re:declining oil production

[Pinky's Brain]

What of the holding camps in the Israeli state?

Re:declining oil production

[jabuzz]

Hum, why do I keep seeing on the news Ahmadinejad calling for the destruction of the state of Israel to cheering crowds?

Re:declining oil production

[ja]

Iran doesn't want another country to do to them what they did to the West in the 70s.

Just to keep things in perspective: Iran was a CIA shop back in those days-

Re:declining oil production

[sycodon]

I expect them to participate in the peace process and stop trying to murder civilians.

Just think, Israel would then have no reason to shred them with jets, tanks, etc.

But as long as they act like terrorists, then they should be treated as such.

Actually, if they wanted a real war, Israel should just go and completely destroy them, as in Germany and Japan.

Peace only comes through complete and utter devastation of one side.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran is not anti-Israel, but anti-USA,

Obviously you haven't heard any of the speeches made by the Iranian president. He is quite clear that the holocaust didn't happen and that Israel should be "wiped from the map" - his words, not mine. If I made a speech like his and reversed the parties I'd be accused of racism and probably arrested for hate speech.

I think much of this is saber rattling but if you take him seriously you would think that his sole purpose in acquiring weapons like this would be to use them on Israel.

Re:declining oil production

[Enigma2175]

You are never going to have to worry about a national suicide bombing.

Ever hear of a Kamikaze? Even if the leader is not suicidal, he can create legions of suicide bombers.

Re:declining oil production

[ravenshrike]

They run the Egyptian control points? Interesting.

Re:declining oil production

[Man On Pink Corner]

You could have said exactly the same thing about airline pilots.

Re:declining oil production

[Penguinisto]

The most commercial fertilizer in US' midwest region is Anhydrous Ammonia, which is produced nowadays from natural gas, not oil (you can distill it from LPG, but I suspect that would cost more to do). You can also produce it from rotting plants and dung (of all things).

Otherwise, sure, oil has weaseled its way into most of modern products, but few would disappear entirely if we stopped using oil to make them.

Re:declining oil production

[Buelldozer]

How can you say these things with a clear conscience? You're either misinformed or attempting to pull off one helluva a bald faced lie!

"Last I checked Iranians weren't training terrorists."

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/exclusive-terrorist-training-camps-in-iran-05956.html - London, Feb. 27 – Iran Focus has obtained a list of 20 terrorist camps and centres run by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

"And it is well known that Iran has actually not supported Hezbollah, contrary to popular American rhetoric."

Oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_of_Iran - "The Hezbollah, or Party of God, (also HizbAllah or Hizbullah) is an Iranian movement formed at the time of the Iranian Revolution to assist the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his forces in consolidating power."

Or

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iran.2232363.html - "On Tuesday, Iran's rhetorical threats against Israel and its unswerving embrace of Hezbollah continued."

I'm trying to not be offensive but your viewpoint has left me incredulous! How do you say the things you do, which are in direct contradiction to well known and cited information, WITHOUT CITATION and then get modded to +5 insightful?

Help me out here.

Re:declining oil production

[CdBee]

The price of participation in the peace process seems to be preconditions (accept existence of israel and permanent israeli oversight, lose your ancestral lands forever, lose East Jerusalem, ..) that are unacceptable to just about everyone who isnt Israeli.

A peace process with preconditions that favour one party over another is no peace process at all. We Brits found that out in Northern Ireland. It didnt work cos we set preconditions that were unacceptable to our enemies. After a lot of shuffling round, soul-searching, delays, angry speeches, and a backing-down, we've got somewhat further along the line

Re:declining oil production

[fast turtle]

We simply ought to do it ourselves. Get rid of all the problems in the middle east at one shot and have control of all the oil fields there. The risk sure looks like a good deal even if it means giving up most of our rights to do this, we'd be safer and I'd be able to quit worrying about my tank getting a meager 3MPG.

Re:declining oil production

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The funny thing is that one thing is never found in energy contingency plans :

renewables

Everyone knows why, yet political correctness demands we say "it's a conspiracy by those evil rich (white) capitalists !". When has the world gone mad ? And why ...

And before you ask : my stance on renewables is the same as on fusion. Ready for more research ? Good potential ? Certainly. Ready to get even a single unit installed (barring exceptional applications) : no. Not in 10 years either.

Re:declining oil production

[c6gunner]

I'm trying to not be offensive but your viewpoint has left me incredulous! How do you say the things you do, which are in direct contradiction to well known and cited information, WITHOUT CITATION and then get modded to +5 insightful?

Because on slashdot, anything critical of Israel automatically gets modded up. It doesn't matter if it's sourced, or if it's accurate, or even if it's internally consistent. As long as you complain about Israel, you're guaranteed mod points.

Re:declining oil production

[c6gunner]

Not that I enjoy taking Israel's side on that point; I am very tired of hearing Israel claiming the position of underdog while being the most zealous in pursuing aggressive action against its neighbours.

I hear ya, man. Just like in this video. It's obvious that the Israeli Karate-dude is the aggressor. After all, he's the only one who threw a punch, he's the one who won the fight, and he never even got hurt in the process! Clearly he's way more aggressive, and should have been locked up.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, take that, hypothetical Iranian Thorium plants!

Wait, what's the topic?

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

nut cases, sure, I'd go so far as to say if you are willing to do what you must do in order to lead a country, and you think you are so awesome that you *should* lead the country, that you must be insane.

However "insane" does not mean "you want to die". niether hitler, nor any other world leader I am aware of has ever aspired to die nor to sacrifice his or her entire country for a singular "blaze of glory". Hitler may have had some overconfidence in his military, but you can rest assured faced with a nuclear armed opponent he would NOT have opted for mutually assured destruction. that was not his goal.

nor is it the goal of the theocracy of Iran. Perhaps some members of it, but those members are directed by the fellows who like power, not the fellows who like strapping bombs to their chests.

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

but that does not matter. the leader cannot create a legion of NUCLEAR suicide bombers without committing suicide for his whole nation in a return strike, at least not if a nuclear armed country is his target.

that is why no nuclear armed powers have gone to war in over 50 years. and if Iran gets Nukes, the same will hold true. they might, like the US, bully non-nuclear nations with impunity, but they would *never allow* a strike against the US. that would be suicide, and leaders don't want to die. they want power.

Re:declining oil production

[c6gunner]

Complaining about israel is the middle east equivalent of westerners complaining taxes are too high, every now and then someone comes along and makes some token changes to policy to win political support, but basically everyone knows the game and is not out to rock the boat too much. Admittedly there is a real danger than you'll get some idiot in charge who actually believes all of the rhetoric, but that is not presently the case with Iran.

I'm sure that you find your personal psychic insights to be quite persuasive, but the rest of us require a little something called "evidence". In the absence of evidence, I'm going to take Ahmadenijad at his word when he says that he wants to annihilate Israel. You'd have to be an idiot not to, and the Israelis would have to be completely fucking suicidal not to.

As a side note, western complaints about taxes generally don't take the form of funding terrorist organizations, or threatening genocide.

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

hardly. learning to fly an airplane is trivial compared to becoming leader of a nation. going through any process as straightforward as that only requires enough brains to learn the material and pass the tests.

leading a nation takes much more than the ability to jump through a few hoops to pass a test.

as another poster pointed out, Kamikaze tactics among pilots was commonplace in WWII. Kamikaze countries, however, are not, have never been, and never will be.

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

hardly. for one target country, maybe. then his country will be a parking lot by morning.

is that a brilliant end game of any political leader you have ever heard of? only if their backs are against the wall. which is why you don't push countries with nukes back against walls. and THAT is why Iran wants nukes.

they rightfully understand it is the only way they can keep Russia, China, and the US at bay. They have countries on both sides that have been playgrounds for major power military operations for decades and they have been embroiled in their machinations as well. I think they want protection. and that is the only protection that counts, in the end.

Re:declining oil production

[shutdown -p now]

It's overwhelmingly Israel that's doing the killing. It's over 100:1.

It's a very well known technique of dealing with casualties in Arab-Israeli conflicts: do not differentiate them into military and civilians. Because if you do, turns out that vast majority of Arab casualties are armed militants.

At that point, the proportion actually makes sense: you have a ragtag, badly armed and badly trained army with virtually no strategic command going against one of the best-trained and best-equipped armies in the world. Of course the casualty rate is going to be insane!

But guess what? If you don't pick a fight with a well-armed guy who minds his own business, you don't get to be beaten into bloody pulp as an outcome.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, it's irrelevant how many allies it has "in that part" of the world. They have the only ally that counts.

Chuck Norris?

Re:declining oil production

[shutdown -p now]

That's all they can do when combat is so asymmetrical. Or do you expect them to fight for something they believe in by standing out in the open and getting shredded by jets, drones, tanks, etc.?

There's a world of difference between "standing out in the open" and "deliberately using civilians as human shields".

Of course, Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians in virtually all missile attacks that they do; whereas civilian casualties caused by IDF are 99% non-deliberate collateral damage, most of it unavoidable because of human shield tactics used by the other side.

Re:declining oil production

[Nutria]

hardly. for one target country, maybe. then his country will be a parking lot by morning.

A good thing, if they all go to meet Allah.

(Fortunately, western Christianity-based doom's day cults have figured out that you can't stimulate Jehovah to return any sooner than He is ready.)

Besides, nuking Iran would send the price of oil through the roof, thus tanking the world economy, and that would be bad for everyone.

they rightfully understand it is the only way they can keep Russia, China, and the US at bay.

The West and Russia have learned that nukes are unusable. Even you admit that if Iran detonates a nuke in Israel, we'd turn it into glass.

Re:declining oil production

[shutdown -p now]

. And it is well known that Iran has actually not supported Hezbollah, contrary to popular American rhetoric.

Absolutely. For some reason, however, some local Lebanese paramilitary groups were so pissed off about this non-existent Iranian presence in Lebanon (and their support for Hezbollah), that they've declared war on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - specifically, Kataeb (Falange) did so. Weird people...

Also, Hezbollah are armed with such products of Iranian military complex as Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rocket artillery, and Ra'ad and Toophan AT missiles. Clearly those must be gifted to them by Allah's divine intervention, since we know that Hezbollah is not supported by Iran at all.

Iranians are not suicidal virgin seekers.

Indeed, and using volunteer militia to create passages through mine fields by means of human waves is a very good testament to that!

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

MAD works when neither side is dreaming of martyrdom.

Re:declining oil production

[quanticle]

If Israel has been "attacked over and over again", so have the Palestinians and many of the neighboring countries.

Really? Last I checked, it wasn't Israel that launched a surprise attack during a religious holiday. The problem with the Arab/Persian position is that their leaders can't get over the fact that Israel exists despite their best efforts. Rather than working honestly to make their peace with the new state in their midst, they use the Palestinians as bargaining chips to try to shame Israel into disbanding itself. Quite reasonably, Israel refuses to do so. Until Iranian and Arab leaders follow Egypt's lead and normalize relations with Israel, little progress can be made regarding the situation of the Palestinians.

Re:declining oil production

[quanticle]

War is not a game. You can't launch attacks from civilian buildings and then complain about "fairness" or "proportionality" when those buildings get bombed.

In my opinion, the methods the Palestinians are employing are all wrong. As long as they continue armed struggle, they cannot win against the overwhelming military advantage that Israel enjoys. However, if they leverage their advantage in birthrate, and simply stage lots of sit-ins, eventually they will break the Israeli civilian population's will. After all, no democracy has successfully crushed a non-violent protest movement. As long as there is even a token level of violence from the opposition, the leadership can use it as a fig leaf to justify a response (no matter how severe - look at Haditha). However, if the opposition is completely non-violent, there isn't anything that the leadership can use to hide the depravity of their actions.

Just as with the Indian independence struggle, the Palestinians will only succeed when they renounce violence.

Re:declining oil production

[quanticle]

How exactly did Israel suffer and how exactly are they accountable, any more than Iran?

The Israeli government is accountable to the Israeli people. I don't see how you can make the same argument about the Iranian government in light of the recent elections there.

Re:declining oil production

[quanticle]

But so what if they really nuked each other to bits?

If they did, they'd cause a nuclear winter. I don't know about Israel's nuclear capacity, but I saw a study that said that even a "small scale" nuclear exchange (on the Indian subcontinent, for example) would throw up enough dust to lower global temperatures by enough to threaten food production.

<sarcasm>On the other hand, that'd fix global warming, wouldn't it?</sarcasm>

Re:declining oil production

[quanticle]

Yeah, but given the geography of Iran, all you need to ensure the destruction of Iran is the destruction of the cities. Given how rugged the Iranian countryside is, most of the populace lives in the cities. The countryside is largely empty. Destroy the cities, and you've destroyed the nation.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

What other country will blanket an area with SMS and leaflets letting people know where they will hit? It is Hamas that is launching attacks out of civilian areas in violation of International law. Israel is justified to retaliate in those instances, and they go even further by notifying the area a head of time where they will hit, so as to minimize civilian causalities.

How is this redundant ? I see we have mods from Hamas here. Any mods from a non terrorist organisation around ?

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of participation in the peace process seems to be preconditions (accept existence of israel and permanent israeli oversight, lose your ancestral lands forever, lose East Jerusalem, ..) that are unacceptable to just about everyone who isnt Israeli. A peace process with preconditions that favour one party over another is no peace process at all. We Brits found that out in Northern Ireland. It didnt work cos we set preconditions that were unacceptable to our enemies. After a lot of shuffling round, soul-searching, delays, angry speeches, and a backing-down, we've got somewhat further along the line

Umm, and Jerusalem and the rest of Israel isn't ancestral lands for the Israelites (Jews) how ? Remember that they lived there before. The fact that the "Noble Sanctuary" of Islam is built On Top of Judaism's holiest site should tell you who was there first.

Re:declining oil production

[Sardaukar86]

Ah, BTW, a country leader making stupid and dangerous comments is in no way an Iranian privilege.

I hate people who do this, but I actually had to stop and think about this sentence for a min. Perhaps "Ah, BTW, there are plenty of other country leaders making stupid and dangerous comments."

I'm not really sure your post improves on Tellarin's succinct, readable and well-worded sentence. While I don't want to make assumptions about your own reading comprehension, I suspect Tellarin's choice of words is less responsible for your annoyance than your preconceptions of how you feel a sentence should read.

Personally, I'm glad for our present literary diversity, if the alternative is sanitised, dumbed-down language as provided by your example.

Re:declining oil production

[delysid-x]

They should, then maybe the US could start paying off its massive foreign debt

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Large parts of the Israeli people appear to be as batshit insane as their leaders, and the Palestinian leaders for that matter. Israel is not being held to account for their actions to the international community because the US keeps blocking any attempt to do so. You know what Obama can do to make peace? Threaten to withdraw the 2 billion dollars in annual *military* aid. (previously it was military and civiilian aid, this has changed at the request of Israel) unless they stop building on Palestinian land. It's really not doing them any favors and only serves to escalate the conflict. I don't care if it's their holy land according to their religious dogma, it's also Muslim holy land, Christian too, hell they are all essentially branches of the same damn insane religion.

Re:declining oil production

[evilviper]

how exactly are they accountable, any more than Iran? They weren't accountable when they got nukes, and once they did, they became even less so.

The state of Israel exists only because of funding from the US. Without those billions in funding, they will cease to exist. And their nukes? It's accepted by just about everyone that the US basically gave them the enriched uranium they needed to build nukes... just as it's an open secret that they HAVE nukes in the first place, which they've never publicly admitted to.

Re:declining oil production

[Failed Physicist]

Actually, Iran does not hold anti-Israeli rhetoric. Rather, just as how you don't call atheists "anti-theists", Iran simply does not recognize the existence of a State of Israel. The basics of their logic being, Israel's creation being totally illegitimate (look up the Balfour declaration, and the subsequent uprooting of Palestinians from their lands and then wrongful appropriation of these lands by Israelis), there is no reason at all to recognize that state.

Re:declining oil production

[sycodon]

If I understand the whole northern Ireland thing correctly (which is most likely not the case), the grievances there were not so much religion as it was nationalistic?

In any case, I don't think they fighting was because the Protestants thought the Catholics are lower life forms that defile the ground Protestants walk on and the Catholics thought the same of the Protestants. Am I correct?

In other Words, the Catholics and Protestants did/do not think of each other as the Muslims think of Christians.

And then there was the way the conflict was waged. I seem to remember that great pains were taken to avoid civilian casualties. Even to the extent that car bombings were called in soon enough for the area to be evacuated. Compared with the mid-east conflict the Northern Ireland conflict was down right civil.

Re:declining oil production

[cbhacking]

The reason we are using up Uranium reserves isn't because we aren't mining enough, it's because we're wasting the vast majority. We could get at least 60x as much energy from current fuels if we reprocessed the usable material out of the waste. As a side effect, this would mean that very little actual waste product is produced, and that its period of dangerous radioactivity would be far, far shorter than that of current waste. In other words, we could cut Uranium consumption by well over an order of magnitude, while doing something more useful with reactor waste than trying to store it safely for millennia.

Unfortunately, it requires breeder reactors (very few are operational today, and building more would be expensive) and fuel reprocessing, which is also expensive (probably more expensive than mining and enriching raw Uranium at today's prices). The biggest problem though (and the main reason we don't do it in the US) is that the most common type of reprocessing we know of is to extract the weapons-grade fissionables, which obviously leads to proliferation concerns (although seriously, it's not like anybody is wondering whether or not the US has nukes yet... proliferation concerns within our borders seem a bit silly to me). There are other ways to do the reprocessing, which would extract usable fuel while leaving the really dangerous isotopes mixed up with the rest (and hence useless for bombs) but they're only starting to get real funding. As I mentioned before, it's expensive, especially when you're doing research rather than just using decades-old techniques.

Re:declining oil production

[dbIII]

None of that justifies what some in Israel has done and also none of what Israel does justifies what some Palestinians have done.
The west is somewhat agast since it's there are corrupt Jewish Fascists doing pogroms on the Palestinian ghettos - doing unto others what was done to them years ago. Having a massacre to help win an election was a disgrace and it's going to take years for Israel to recover it's reputation, but first it has to get clean up it's government.

Re:declining oil production

[OrangeCatholic]

That's all true. We have plenty of coal, and natural gas hasn't been exploited properly (imo). But that's assuming Manhattan isn't underwater by then. I don't think we're running out of fossil fuel so much as we're running out of a place to dump the waste carbon. The third world is practically in a state of revolt over the climate issue and has begun extracting concessions from the likes of us.

Re:declining oil production

[g8oz]

What if the well-armed guy won't leave *you* alone? What if after kicking you out of your land, he keeps taking pieces of what you have left, restricts your movements, chops down your orchards etc?

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Why even bother with conversion when you can build more coal-to-liquids plants to generate synthetic fuels from gasified coal?

Such plants were used by Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. A number of such plants exist around the world, a handful are currently under construction and more are on the drawing board.

Re:declining oil production

[shutdown -p now]

What if the well-armed guy won't leave *you* alone? What if after kicking you out of your land, he keeps taking pieces of what you have left, restricts your movements, chops down your orchards etc?

You might want to start asking why he did all that. Like, kicking out of your land - perhaps that happened after you repeatedly attacked him from it, and he decided that he doesn't want to have a dark corner nearby from which he gets a guy coming out dead set on murdering him every 10 years? So he tells you to always walk in such way that he can see your hands, because, well, you've tried to strangle him with those hands so many times?

Or you could also sit down and talk. Maybe ask him why he's doing all that as well. Ask if he thinks that you did something wrong. Of course, to do so, you must be willing to talk in the first place, and by that I do not mean a monologue which begins with "Here's what I want from you, and nothing of that is under discussion", and ends with "... oh, and fuck you, I pray some day we slaughter you all as our God tolds us we should do".

In fact, a good way to start would be to recognize that the other guy may also have some rights to occupy at least some of the lands that he does.

Actually, it may even happen that the other guy specifically offers you to return you the parts he took away - after a fight which was triggered by your plentiful insults, and a threatening move - if only you recognize his rights to own anything in the first place. In which case, telling him to GTFO, and trying to punch him again, is probably a bad idea.

Oh, and what about when you do sit down with him and talk, and even agree on some terms, but then shortly after you tell him that you just don't like him because he's an asshole anyway, and punch him again?

Re:declining oil production

[junglee_iitk]

How can you say these things with a clear conscience? You're either misinformed or attempting to pull off one helluva a bald faced lie!

By not being a Muslim, Iranian, Jew, American, etc. I consider myself pretty impartial so it is possible for me to step over your sensitive toes.

Oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_of_Iran [wikipedia.org] - "The Hezbollah, or Party of God, (also HizbAllah or Hizbullah) is an Iranian movement formed at the time of the Iranian Revolution to assist the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his forces in consolidating power."

And where the hell is your conscience when the first sentence of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_of_Iran states:

"For the Islamist Shia Lebanese militia/political party/social services provider, see Hezbollah."

Yep, that's right - they are different!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iran.2232363.html [nytimes.com] - "On Tuesday, Iran's rhetorical threats against Israel and its unswerving embrace of Hezbollah continued."

You could have quoted an article from 2009 to show that it is just a rhetoric from its unpopular regime - a part of "west is bad" - which is what I was saying.There is no proof of *actual* support of Iranian regime to Hezbollah. Iran is predominantly Shia while rest of the Arab is predominantly Sunni, and they both think the other one is a "kafir". Here, for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8149014.stm
"Iran has executed 13 members of a Sunni rebel group blamed for a spate of attacks in the south-east of the country, Iran's state news agency says."
I could produce a citation for myself from Economist, but unfortunately I am not a subscriber and cannot access archived articles. But that's ok, facts are not important.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/exclusive-terrorist-training-camps-in-iran-05956.html [iranfocus.com] - London, Feb. 27 – Iran Focus has obtained a list of 20 terrorist camps and centres run by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

You mean this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Focus
"Critics state that the website is one of the web outlets of the MKO, a group identified as a terrorist organization by USA, Canada and European Union. Some say that the MKO uses Iranfocus.com, Iranterror.com and other websites to advocate its position, rather than present objective and accurate news reports.[2][3]"

This is why I wrote non-American. Guess I should have written non-British, non-Israeli and non-Iranian too. The increased rhetoric against Iran since 2006 has been much discussed over rest of the Europe. This article http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1170359771711&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull in 2007 shows Hezbollah leader admitting Iranian support. But this was also found out to be just chest-thumping with no facts.
But who needs facts when you have a nuclear bomb.

And btw, I am Hindu, and have lived through bomb attacks in my home city - unlike most Americans. One such bomb was blasted in Mumbai last year by terrorists trained in "nuclear power" Pakistan.

Re:declining oil production

[junglee_iitk]

Yep, that is why I modded Flamebait and you are modded Insightful. But I am not new to Slashdot, may be I should start complaining about mod-points.

Re:declining oil production

[That_Dan_Guy]

You don't think the rest of the arab countries are scared out of their wits that Iran might get Nukes? You don't think this has caused the Saudis to pursue their own Nuke program?

Well, I think you need to look a little deeper dude. You'd do well to start with Stratfor.com if it wasn't so expensive. but then a good education is priceless, and boy are you in need of one.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

No it was unarmed jews that led to genocide IIRC.
What could lead to genocide now are imported advanced defense technologies.

Re:declining oil production

[Rufty]

Someone's started preparing some time ago...

Re:declining oil production

[maraist]

Ahmadinejad is a liar, but in his religion, it is acceptable to lie to infidels.

However, I think you misrepresent/over-simplify his stated views on Israel. I listened painfully, to his interviews on his recent visit to the US/UN. (Sorry too lazy to look up quotes.)

But what he says is that:
If Nazi Germany committed a genocide, then why not graft land from Germany and give it to the Jews instead of taking land from the middle east?
Also, why weren't the Gypsies given their own land? They were equally persecuted.

Essentially, he reasons that the holocaust is not an excuse for the current situation.

Now his going-forward recommendations were to grant voting power to the residents (namely the Palistinians) and he presents the non-improbable outcome that they'd evict the Israeli's. So obviously this isn't going to happen, so he's not a pragmatist.

But the blanket assertion that he's crazy isn't the case, in my opinion.. He's carefully crafting diplomatic words that maximizes his position.

At the end of the day, we don't care about the history - in fact, the history of modern Israel is a lot more complex, and I don't even fully understand it - sufficient to say, the holocaust was not the most deciding factor. What we care about is that it's in our interests to have strong allies in the region. Look at teetering Christians African nations if you don't believe me.

Re:declining oil production

[maraist]

There's a simple economic solution.. But first, the heart of the problem.

Nobody is allowed to know the exact reserves of Saudi-Arabia, though we have a decent idea about the rest of the world (at least in terms of active oil wells). So we're acting on a sort of desperate optimism. 'Of course they're plenty to be had'.. So speculation and hoarding isn't going on as it SHOULD.

If, on the other hand, we were able to release the information of current reserve readiness to the general public, then a count-down clock would effectively have started, and hoarding would go rampant.

This of course jacks the price of oil, and consequently hurts the world economy. But also massively increases spending in alternative energies.

You somewhat get the best of both worlds.. High oil prices with plenty of reserves.

Eventually alternatives succeed and oil futures decrease in value.. The fore-knowledge of this brings about the perfectly competitive market - such that efficient levels of R&D v.s. reward can find their way through.

Re:declining oil production

[c6gunner]

Don't worry, it's just a temporary reversal. Some more antisemites will be along shortly to correct the situation.

Re:declining oil production

[Tellarin]

Hey mister flamebaiter, nowhere I said everybody loves Iran.

If you're so educated, please learn to read and notice that I do agree that Iran is unstable and undemocratic. And also that I was just pointing flaws in the way the OP originally framed his argument.

Even your example about Saudi Arabia is a fallacy. Israel having nukes is as good a reasons as Iran having them for the Saudis to pursue theirs. If they ever needed a "reason".

Re:declining oil production

[junglee_iitk]

Yep, now I am an antisemite. Go Hitler Go!

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

andy zebrowitz

Re:declining oil production

[mweather]

No, they weren't. The oil embargo was in '79, a year after the revolution.

Re:declining oil production

[CyberSaint]

Bio-polymers are fairly cheap to refine, have been in use for thousands of years and relatively plentiful, but most are simply incinerated today as industrial waste. Investing in their development hasn't been a priority for a few centuries because oil was cheaper, but the fact they still exist and compete with oil based polymer products indicates to me that the cost threshold shouldn't be to much higher than oil, especially since most sources can be grown in such a manner as to not compete with food production. As for fertilizer, again it's simply a case of synthetic solutions being cheaper to manufacture due to a readily available source, and the cost of oil hovering just above the profitability threshold for the alternatives.

Re:declining oil production

[Boldoran]

Considering that in the summer 1944 Germany was starting to lose on all fronts and would not capitulate even when the allies started to invade Homeland-Germany I would say that Hitler was indeed willing to sacrifice his entire country.

Re:declining oil production

[ja]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

Yes, and they hate us for our freedom. Seriously, you think people who spend their whole lives in the pursuit of power are looking only to die gloriously for allah, along with all of their countrymen?

childish. leaders of muslim countries like money and power just as much as leaders in all the other countries. they don't want it go away, ever. to believe they are all looking to live up to the ideals that low-level thugs believe or that are used by higher level thugs to keep the low level thugs going is just silly. You don't see Osama Bin Laden strapping on a suicide vest... and you never will.

Re:declining oil production

[rhakka]

yes, he had no alternative: he was a dead man and his country conquered no matter what at that point. that is called having your "back against the wall".

Now, if he had nukes (AND we had them, of course) we couldn't invade him, and he'd have been pretty unlikely to just let his country die rather than continuing to rule it.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Like every other country in the region that is not Israel? Are they as concerned as the west about Iran's nuclear program? What about their opinion on the fact that Israel secretly produced nuclear weapons and still has them?

Do you know enough to know that Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in at the very least one (but more like two or three) proxy wars right now? If so name the country (hint: the country has gotten some media attention recently due to a somewhat unrelated issue). Do you know enough to know that Saudi Arabia is considering getting their own nuclear weapons and that only US assurances to Saudi Arabia have so far avoided a nuclear race between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Or do you only know enough to be the kind of useful idiot that there's already such an abundance of?

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel has nothing to do with this conversation. You happen to be an anti-Zionist and therefore its a good thing that Iran gets the nuclear bomb? I fail to see the link. Iran has FAR, FAR more foreign policy threats/disputes from their arab neighbours in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE than from Israel. Heard of the Iran / Iraq war with 2 million casualties? Or is Israel the "main driver of conflict in the region", with it's small scale skirmishes of a few thousand casualties? Most politicians from the neighbouring countries are shitting themselves at the thought of a nuclear iran. People like you who divert the real problems of this world, like a nuclearized fundamentalist Islamic terrorist funding state with banal references to the Jewish scapegoats are the reason the middle east will permantly remain a hellhole, at least until the oil dries up and everyone goes back to the dessert. Go fuck yourself.

Re:declining oil production

[Anonymous Coward]

And he not only denies gay rights, but denies that there were even homosexuals in Iran. Even America didn't deny the fact there were black people who were being oppressed. Some might have said that they weren't being oppressed but no one would be as stupid as to say that there is no such thing as black people.

That is a little different, there is no physical marker that indicates a person is gay, so it is a lot easier to deny the existence of gay people than it is black people. That's not a justification, it just makes denying their existence easier than denying the existence of blacks.

Re:declining oil production

[junglee_iitk]

Well, for the part of Iran not supporting Hezbollah, I have read latest news and I was wrong. Sorry.

zero-risk?

[reub2000]

How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail? If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant, then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.

Re:zero-risk?

[QuoteMstr]

And how many genuinely foolproof and fail-safe machines do you use every day without noticing, because they work so well?

We can build nuclear reactors that are safe, and we don't need thorium to do it. We can build inherently safe nuclear reactors today using a variety of techniques. (See "void coefficient".)

But like I said above, if using thorium leads to new public acceptance of nuclear power, it's a win regardless of its technical merits.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah true but so what who cares. I live relatively close Chernobyl the effects of that meltdown has been way overestimated. New research on the matter shows that we where of by 10-100 times in our estimations on the effects of Chernobyl. Nuclear is not nice to humans but it's not such a big deal to our environment. Animal in Chernobyl shows to be at good health, they are in-fact more immune against cancer than animals living in less radiated areas. If we humans want a clean environment and still have the energy there is not many other choices to go with.

Re:zero-risk?

[sznupi]

I prefer small chance of it leaking out (which happened only once) more than the routine of "leaking" it out into biosphere on a daily basis, in the amounts no nuclear power plant will match. As do coal-fired plants.

Re:zero-risk?

[Dun Malg]

How many times have we designed things that are supposed to be unsinkable or infallible and then had them sink or fail? If there is a radioactive material being used in the plant, then there is a chance that some of it will leak out.

See, it's fucking dimwits like you that talk about 7-sigma events as if they're 3-sigma events that keep us using fucking coal, with its 100% probability of continuously releasing radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Get a fucking education, or failing that, go die in a fucking fire, you goddamn Luddite.

Re:zero-risk?

[Bigjeff5]

It's called fail-safe, it's an engineering concept that mitigates the damage of a failure. You don't design the system to never fail, but if it fails have a catastrophy (like what happened with the Titanic), you design it so when failure approaches the system shuts itself down and contains itself by its very nature.

When you have an opportunity to use the physical properties of the material you are working with to design the fail-safe system, you are in an ideal situation.

The system described in the summery would be fail-safe, making a run-away reaction like Chernobyl impossible.

And yes, there is always a chance radiation can leak, there is also a chance the earth will be hit by an asteroid tomorrow. It isn't very likely, though, is it? In fact, the chance is so remote you'd be a fool to live your life afraid of it. With the risk so small, the reward far out-weighs it.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I'm no mathematician, but there have been several hundred reactors built (maybe even a few thousand), and at least 2 have failed to some extent (TMI & Chernoble), which seems to put it right around 3 sigma... a 7-sigma event would only happen once for every 390,600,000,000 reactors.

I'm with you on the problems of coal, and I think nuclear is much better, but let's get real here - it's nowhere near 7 sigma.

Re:zero-risk?

[moderatorrater]

And how many genuinely foolproof and fail-safe machines do you use every day without noticing, because they work so well?

0. None. Zip. Zilch. There's no such thing as something that's genuinely foolproof and can't fail. Everyone knows this, so if they continue to say that there's no risk at all with this design, then the public's going to call bullshit on it. It'd be much better to say that it's more safe or less risky than other design types and avoid making everyone think of what the titanic would have been like in nuclear reactor form.

Re:zero-risk?

[QuoteMstr]

Sure, there's a chance of failure in every system, but good design can reduce it to an acceptable level. There's chance in everything: you could walk outside and be struck dead my a freak meteor.

As for the Titantic: how many passenger liner disasters have there been since her sinking?

Re:zero-risk?

[hitmark]

entropy is a bitch, no?

Re:zero-risk?

[TapeCutter]

What the Chernobyl exclusion zone demonstrates is that from the animals POV, humans are worse than a nuclear disaster.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is. There is genuinely foolproof and can't fail. The reason is physics would have to be changed for them to fail. But then I guess you worry about that too?

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Profoundly argued. I particularly like the subtle, "... go die in a fucking fire..."

You are a genius. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Re:zero-risk?

[Kymermosst]

And how many genuinely foolproof and fail-safe machines do you use every day without noticing, because they work so well?

0. None. Zip. Zilch. There's no such thing as something that's genuinely foolproof and can't fail.

"Fail-safe" does not mean "free from failure". Fail-safe means that when said machine fails, it always fails in such a way that minimizes harm to equipment and operators.

Re:zero-risk?

[QuoteMstr]

What's the problem with that?

Animals mean nothing. We are people. We ought to care about people. As long as we have enough animals to ensure that we can eat, and that the ecosystem doesn't collapse, worrying about the world from mother nature's perspective is just handwringing that is a luxury of those living in privileged first-world societies that are lucky enough to benefit from the back-breaking work of their ancestors.

Re:zero-risk?

[the pickle]

To be totally fair to the grandparent poster, the designs of both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were vulnerable to multiple points of mechanical failure (Chernobyl didn't even have a containment building!), and even these dated designs would have held up but for the human error involved. Remember, if the staff at Chernobyl had actually followed their procedures and hadn't been conducting a test with improper staffing, the accident never would have happened. And in the case of TMI, if the indicator lamp in the control room had indicated valve position, rather than the presence of power across the actuator solenoid, the operators would have known the valve was stuck open and been aware that they were facing a loss of coolant.

Furthermore, in terms of overall manufacturing experience, humanity does not have the level of expertise with nuclear reactors that we have with, say, cars or airplanes or computers. To have only two major failures out of the first 1000 units built is pretty impressive for any device.

Then again, how do you measure "reliability" here? Does one failure doom a device to the "failure" column forever, even if it operated flawlessly for years prior to the failure? What constitutes a "failure", anyway? Escape of radiation to the atmosphere? Or escape of radiation greater than a certain level? Or something less serious than a radiation escape? In terms of "dangerous" radiation releases per operating hour, the GP is probably right in accidents being a seven-sigma phenomenon.

Of course, this is complicated stuff. If it was easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you do have a pretty good point in that real-world results are what matters here. The consequences of failure are severe, and "only" three-sigma reliability isn't good enough. But we've learned very important lessons from both major accidents, and current designs take those lessons into account. Future designs will, too.

p

Re:zero-risk?

[Dr. Spork]

Gee, if you're so easy to scare, try this out: Building industrial-scale photovoltaic installations might raise the albedo of the Earth so much that it will disrupt climate patterns and kill you with lightning. That's totally possible. I'm sure you can come up with your own nightmare scenarios for any reasonable technology.

But you know what scares me? The fossil-fuel-burning status quo, which is what your dumb fears are (perhaps unintentionally) perpetuating.

Re:zero-risk?

[Dr. Spork]

If you really care about people, you'll want them to live on a planet that's not headed for an environmental catastrophe. Don't you think? See where nuclear power might play a role in that?

Re:zero-risk?

[orzetto]

I think you need a "fucking education", sir.

Radioactivity is a concentration problem. Radioactivity, just like chemical pollution, is dangerous only beyond a certain threshold: we are right now exposed to cosmic rays, but that is not a cause of cancer, because our bodies can handle that level of radioactivity: they evolved for millions of years in this environment.

Coal plants may well generate a large cumulative amount of radioactivity, but since that is so highly dispersed, that has no adverse effects whatsoever (which cannot be said of other by-products of coal plants).

Please occlude the fornication up and refrain from parroting factoids of dubious parentage when the discussion is about arguments you do not understand.

Re:zero-risk?

[rainer_d]

Animals usually have a shorter life-span and breed more generations in a shorter time than humans.
Thus, their gene-pool throws-out the cancer-ridden "evolutionary errors" much quicker.
I guess we could do simliar if
  - we completely abolished birth-control
  - helped natural selection by denying medical supply to the sick (whatever their age)

Re:zero-risk?

[electrosoccertux]

It's called a pebble-bed reactor, and the reaction is automatically limited in the mixture of uranium as the reactor heats up through a mechanism called neutron cross section broadening.
It is failproof.

Re:zero-risk?

[dgr73]

Just since 1980:
Feb. 2, 2006: Egyptian passenger ship Salaam 98, carrying an estimated 1,300 people, sinks in the Red Sea.
July 7, 2005: Overloaded ferry sinks off Indonesia's Papua province, killing about 200 people.
Nov. 25, 2003: Ferry collision on Congo's Mai-Indombe lake kills at least 182 people.
Sept. 25, 2002: Senegalese ferry capsizes in a storm off Gambia in West Africa, killing about 1,000 people.
May 3, 2002: More than 300 die when a triple-decked ferry sinks in the Meghna River in Bangladesh.
Oct. 19, 2001: 374 die, most believed to be asylum-seekers from Afghanistan and Iraq, when a refugee boat sinks en route from Indonesia to Australia.
June 29, 2000: Some 500 killed when Cahaya Bahari ferry sinks off Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Nov. 24, 1999: 282 killed when ferry sinks after catching fire off east coast of China.
Feb. 6, 1999: The Harta Rimba, a ship not licensed for passenger use, sinks in the South China Sea, killing about 325 people.
May 21, 1996: Ferry sinks in Lake Victoria in east Africa, killing at least 500 people. One estimate puts the number of dead at 800.
Jan. 19, 1996: Ferry sinks in a storm off Sumatra, Indonesia, killing about 340 people.
Sept. 28, 1994: The ferry Estonia sinks during a storm in the Baltic Sea, killing 852 people.
Aug. 20, 1994: More than 250 killed when ferry sinks in a storm on the River Meghna in Bangladesh.
Feb. 16, 1993: Overcrowded ferry sinks between Jeremie and Port-au-Prince, Haiti, estimated 500-700 dead.
Dec. 14, 1991: More than 460 passengers and crew die after a coral reef tears a hole in a ferry's side near the port of Safaga, Egypt.
Aug. 6, 1988: As many as 400 drown in India when a ferry capsizes in the Ganges River.
Dec. 20, 1987: 4,340 drown when the ferry Dona Paz collides with the tanker MT Victor in the Philippines.
March 6, 1987: 189 die when water rushes through the open bow doors of the Herald of Free Enterprise, causing the British ferry to capsize off the Belgian port of Zeebrugge.
Aug. 31, 1986: Soviet passenger ship Admiral Nakhimov collides with a merchant vessel in the Black Sea, causing both ships to sink and killing up to 448 people.
May 25, 1986: Some 600 people die when their ferry goes down in the River Meghna in southern Barisal district, Bangladesh.
Jan. 27, 1981: 580 killed when Indonesian passenger ship Tamponas II catches fire and sinks in Java sea.
Source: MSNBC
Aside from the first one which, if the name is anything to go by, was built to absorb water the ships are built with full knowledge of the Titanic disaster.

Re:zero-risk?

[Mitchell314]

No. What if a giant picks the reactor up and uses it to hammer pedestrians? Didn't think of that, did they? Failproof, my foot.

Re:zero-risk?

[caluml]

Remember, if the staff at Chernobyl had actually followed their procedures and hadn't been conducting a test with improper staffing, the accident never would have happened. And in the case of TMI, if the indicator lamp in the control room had indicated valve position, rather than the presence of power across the actuator solenoid, the operators would have known the valve was stuck open and been aware that they were facing a loss of coolant.

Do you see the problem there? Things that never should have happened happened. People suck. Don't build stuff that relies on people not being stupid, corrupt, or lazy.
FWIW though, I'm for nuclear power. And also, from what I read about Thorium (watched Google videos actually) it looks very good.

Re:zero-risk?

[jimbolauski]

I tend to round my risk so zero risk is less then .00001%, my pen has zero risk even though I could stab my self with it, my chair has zero risk even though I could Ballmer it through a wall.

Re:zero-risk?

[electrosoccertux]

lol.

Re:zero-risk?

[Unequivocal]

If you count passenger ferry boats, then a whole lot.

Re:zero-risk?

[Unequivocal]

Well said.

Re:zero-risk?

[T-Bone-T]

So, on average, about 1 per year or less? That's pretty good, actually. I feel safer knowing that.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the Titantic: how many passenger liner disasters have there been since her sinking?

Quite a few. Notably MS Estonia (in 1994) and serveral others.

Re:zero-risk?

[JetTredmont]

Exactly. But, you see: lessons were learned from the second-gen nuclear power plants (or 1.5-gen as was the case with Chernobyl), and were both retrofitted into other Gen-2 plants and taken into account in Gen-3 or Gen-3+ designs (today's designs are 3+ or sometimes referred to as 4, although "true" gen-4 is still quite a way down the road).

http://www.our-energy.com/videos/third_generation_nuclear_power_station.html

Today's designs have a much greater appreciation of human failures and use passive (intrinsic) rather than active (human or machine intervention required when the light starts blinking) safety measures. Of course, given that the US has only ever experienced Gen-2 plants, we have a very poor view of nuclear plant state of the art.

Re:zero-risk?

[TapeCutter]

Humans have an exceptional theory of mind and I like to use mine. Looking at something from a different (even an inanimate) POV is what stands us apart from the animals. If you have a weak theory of mind you ought to get it checked, it could be a sign of autisim.

Also your ancestors worshiped animals as gods and I suspect they would be sorry to hear about the death of your soul.

Re:zero-risk?

[dunkelfalke]

Not quite, my fellow pink floyd fan. The first few years big parts of the forest died out. Also there were extreme mutations, which couldn't survive, though. It took two decades to re-establish some wildlife balance and even now (for example) the mice in the zone are genetically more different from normal mice than mice from rats.

Re:zero-risk?

[shutdown -p now]

If you really care about people, you'll want them to live on a planet that's not headed for an environmental catastrophe. Don't you think?

Yes, but you do not need to preserve every Unique Species to avoid an environmental catastrophe. That is the gist of GP's post - we should care about our own well-being first and foremost, and be environmentalists not to preserve cute fluffy things, but because (and only insofar as) it's good for us as a species. If cute fluffy things have an eco-niche that's important, then we protect them. If they do not, and they stand in the way of something otherwise too important for us... too bad for them (though "important" is a loaded word... e.g. penis enlargement pills made out of shark fins, or whatever they use, doesn't count).

See where nuclear power might play a role in that?

Yes; so far as I can see, the role of nuclear power would be to significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuel and other polluting energy sources, thus significantly contributing towards preservation of environment, and aversion of any potential environmental catastrophe.

Or did you have something else in mind?

Re:zero-risk?

[Dan541]

So you prefer coal a far more dangerous industry responsible for countless deaths?

No thanks I prefer the safety of Nuclear power.

Re:zero-risk?

[Rising Ape]

Radioactivity is a concentration problem. Radioactivity, just like chemical pollution, is dangerous only beyond a certain threshold: we are right now exposed to cosmic rays, but that is not a cause of cancer, because our bodies can handle that level of radioactivity: they evolved for millions of years in this environment.

That's not the generally accepted view, which is that any dose of radiation could cause cancer, with probability proportional to dose (up to a point). Your "dangerous beyond a threshold" argument is only true for the acute effects of radiation, not its carcinogenic characteristics. If the standard model is correct, the radiation from coal plants certainly does cause cancer (as do cosmic rays), it's just hard to detect because cancer is so common anyway.

Re:zero-risk?

[Dan541]

Nope, Nuclear is clean safe and readily available.

If you want to live on a healthy planet support Nuclear, otherwise you can go on burning coal get lung cancer, global warming and acid rain.

Re:zero-risk?

[Dan541]

In the United States you would need at worse case scenario a Chernobyl style accident every 3 weeks to be more dangerous than coal. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092

Re:zero-risk?

[francium de neobie]

How many times have we lit fires that were supposed to be safe but burnt down the forest? If there's a chance the fire can spread through surrounding vegetation, then there is a chance of a forest fire.

So, what do I say? Cooked food is evil. Let's just do it the old, risk-free way - eat things raw.

Re:zero-risk?

[CrazyChinaman]

While you can make a reactor with passive safety systems, the whole plant is still run by humans. The point of failure is the operator in both Chernobyl and TMI. At TMI they had an auxiliary feedwater valve mispositioned, which eventaully led to a condition where the operators had a different plant configuration in their heads than what was actually there. In the end, they cause the reactor to go dry and melt itself. At Chernobyl they bypassed multiple safety systems in order to run a test. And violated several operating principals when the test was interrupted, and then tried to proceed with the test. Also, they're reactor had a positive void-coefficient. That means that as it got hotter, the reactivity (follow: power) increased. Current reactor designs have a negative coefficient. So as the core gets hotter, the reactivity decreases, cutting itself off, and preventing a run-away reactor. But remember, that's what TMI had, and they still managed to melt it. Human error is the tipping point in complex systems such as these.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but plants seem to be mostly cool with it [the CEZ].

Re:zero-risk?

[cbhacking]

You realize that for one of these reactors to melt down would require a violation of the laws of physics, right? It's about as likely as that the Titanic, with all its airspaces flooded by water, will one day spontaneously rise to the surface again.

Re:zero-risk?

[cbhacking]

Leak out, sure (if, for example, somebody hit the reactor with a bomb). How dangerous would it be? Well, you've probably heard of the Three Mile Island "disaster" (worst commercial reactor incident in US history). That reactor (of a type which was not passively safe, the way these would be) had some of its radioactive material "leak out" which certainly wasn't a good thing, but have you ever looked into how much damage it caused?

Death toll from direct exposure: 0. Not a single worker, nor anybody in the town
Death toll from increased cancer incidence: estimated at possibly as high as 2 (impossible to measure exactly, no noticeable spike)
Estimated average radiation exposure for people within 10 miles: a chest X-ray
Estimated maximum exposure for any one person: roughly the same as four months worth of background radiation exposure by the average US citizen

This was decades ago, and we've learned a *lot* of lessons from it. The control scheme at the plant was bad, the workers were poorly trained, the equipment had a known problem (a critical valve that tended to stick), regulatory oversight was much lower than today, and the design of the reactor itself was vastly inferior to those we know how to build now. In over half a century of nuclear power, this is the worst event that has happened in the USA. Almost everything that *could* go wrong did... and the end fewer people died than one might expect from the average car accident.

Re:zero-risk?

[WoRLoKKeD]

So long as it doesn't raise the libido of the Earth, I'd say we're good. I've seen Evil Dead....

Re:zero-risk?

[Nazlfrag]

And can you name such a device which will also never, ever fail catastrophically?

Re:zero-risk?

[Nazlfrag]

Or an unforseen event caused failure, eg. if a passenger plane was flown into the reactor. Not to mention the physics of nature. While we have meteors, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis to potentially wreck our day, Murphys Law will always win.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that was my point.

Re:zero-risk?

[Nazlfrag]

Humans are animals. But don't let that stop you from dismissing all life on earth apart from your immediate relatives as worthless.

Re:zero-risk?

[MrKaos]

I prefer small chance of it leaking out (which happened only once) more than the routine of "leaking" it out into biosphere on a daily basis,

I suggest you read up on the emissions that the NRC permit from a Nuclear reactor every second day that are NRC standard operating procedures before we start talking about unintentional or unauthorised radioactive effluent emissions. Additionally, every Nuclear power plant vents approximately 100 cubic feet of Noble gases roughly every two weeks. No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed.

As do coal-fired plants.

Coal plants emit un-enriched natural elements so they are, literally, millions of times less radioactive than Nuclear Reactor effluents.

Re:zero-risk?

[Dan541]

Ok, i must have misread your post.

Re:zero-risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

SL-1 regulated fission rate by void coefficient, and it vaporized perfectly fine.

What truly protects a nuclear reactor is engineering, training, and quality assurance at all levels and in all processes related to manufacture and operation. Breakdowns in these processes are what lead to failure, not the physical concepts underlying dependence of the fission rate on environmental factors(which is not to say that a PWR is not a better concept than MBRK).

My money is on any current PWR reactor being safer in the next 60 years than a thorium reactor due to experience in the industry with the technologies.

Re:zero-risk?

[reub2000]

But such a statement reeks of hubris. Looking at the risks, I'd much rather have one of these than a coal plant in my back yard.

Re:zero-risk?

[maraist]

Right, but the problem is that, to my knowledge, the only new nuclear power plants being commissioned in the US are merely adding additional nodes to existing 2nd Gen plants. So where are the lessons learned?

Sure we can swap out switches / computers, etc.. But the state of the art is entirely passive based systems - theoretically fool proof.. We're no where ready to deploy those in the US due to politics.

Re:zero-risk?

[herbierobinson]

And it's also guaranteed to produce more nuclear waste than any other kind of reactor.

Re:zero-risk?

[ckaminski]

OMG, a 100 cu/ft of naturally occuring helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and the radioactive radon. Once a week. Times 1000 reactors? Christ, I probably breathe more than that every month in naturally occuring atmospheric air.

Re:zero-risk?

[TapeCutter]

I wasn't trying to imply a nuclear disaster was harmless but I can see how it could be interpreted that way but I was speaking to extreme averssion wildlife has to the top predator on the planet. The DMZ in Korea also has a lot of wildlife due to the lack of humans. The critters in Korea don't have wierd mutations but they do spend a lot of time clearing landmines.

Re:zero-risk?

[TapeCutter]

Eerrggghh, made an arse of myself with the double but.

Re:zero-risk?

[TapeCutter]

Eerrggghh, made an arse of myself with the double but. Then I posted this reply to the wrong thread....I think I'll quit while I'm behind.

Re:zero-risk?

[MrKaos]

OMG, a 100 cu/ft of naturally occuring helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and the radioactive radon. Once a week. Times 1000 reactors? Christ, I probably breathe more than that every month in naturally occuring atmospheric air.

My point was that No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed. You seem quite adept at speaking with ignorance at the effect since we know that no science to understand those effects have been performed.

What we *do* know is that those noble gases are high energy gamma emitters and if you happen to be breathing where a concentration of noble gases are occurring they are easily absorbed from the lungs into the blood stream. Whilst chemically non-reactive they are fat soluble and have a tendency to locate where fat is stored in the body, adjacent to the reproductive organs where they can induce significant mutations in eggs and sperm.

Probably not good if you are trying to have children and you live near a Nuclear Reactor. Furthermore, as an exercise for yourself why don't you discover what the noble gases Xenon 137 and Krypton 90, both emitted from Nuclear reactors and in the scope of our discussion, decay into if you are so confident in your assertions?

Your 'cowboy' attitude towards the release of these radioactive isotopes is hardly the type of responsible Nuclear advocacy required to progress the industry and I would suggest that you lobby for more science to uncover the genealogical effects of these radioactive isotopes if you are sincere with your support of the nuclear industry.

Re:zero-risk?

[MobyDisk]

Granted, there is always risk. But make sure that we are clear on which is safer: more people have died from coal mining and coal-related disasters than have died from nuclear disasters. Consider: collapsing mines, cancer, explosions, smog, acid rain, suffocation, poisoning ... coal is really really dangerous stuff. Even if we scaled our nuclear production to match our coal production, nuclear would still be far safer than coal.

Re:zero-risk?

[Sir_Lewk]

No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed.

If the toxicity of noble gasses really concerns you that much then A) You don't know shit about noble gasses, B) You are desperately grasping at things to bitch about because you are a fanatic and no amount of logic and science will ever change your mind, or C) both A and B. The toxicity of noble gases has of course been studied before, and there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about, particularly in the levels you are talking about (we're talking homeopathic concentrations here...)

Coal plants emit un-enriched natural elements

I have some all natural arsenic for you to eat. Or maybe you would prefer some nice, all natural, hemlock?

Re:zero-risk?

[JetTredmont]

I thought we were debating the idea of a Thorium-based reactor initiative (necessarily creating new power plants) versus creating new Uranium-based power plants.

I agree: if the alternative to a new Thorium-based reactor is expanding capacity on outdated Gen-2 Uranium plants, then the safety question is heavily in favor of the new design.

Obviously a Thorium reactor should be cheaper to build in terms of footprint, location, and mass of systems (no remote locations, no massive water towers, etc), but currently makes up for that by expensive new technology, and will for the foreseeable future (until we've made a hundred of them). In that incrementalist short-term future, it seems the three options (new Thorium reactor, new Uranium reactor, new spark plugs and shiny hub caps in the old Uranium reactors) should all be weighed as options, and the middle option isn't price-prohibitive.

So far as what has been commissioned: I see that as an unfairly narrow view. Look instead to what we should be commissioning in the future.

Re:zero-risk?

[MrKaos]

The toxicity of noble gases has of course been studied before

So you will be able to a) provide a link to a peer reviewed epidemiological study on the effect of noble gas effluents from Nuclear Reactors on human beings that spells out the mutative effects to children whose sperm or eggs were exposed to noble gases chemically bound to fat? Or b) admit you are just Talking.Out.Of.Your.Ass?

particularly in the levels you are talking about (we're talking homeopathic concentrations here...)

Clearly, you don't understand how bio-concentration and bio-accumulation occurs in the foodchain otherwise you would not make such a ludicrous statement. For example Krypton 90 decays into strontium 90 and Xenon 137 decays in cesium 137, you know with those a) half lives and all and b) accumulating in the foodchain.

I have some all natural arsenic for you to eat. Or maybe you would prefer some nice, all natural, hemlock?

This is A) the most idiotic straw-man arguments I've seen in a long time and B) using selective concern with the toxicity of radioactive effluents that suit your argument. The jewel in the Nuclear fanboi's argument is 'but coal plants emit radioactive isotopes too' that play on people's ignorance of the process that makes radioactive isotope effluents from Nuclear power plants millions of times more toxic than those from coal power stations due to Neutron bombardment within the core of the reactor. Is that a healthy enough use of bold to dispel A) Your ignorance and B) Your idiocracy or C)probably both your idiocracy and ignorance.

I've spent *my* time examining the science, engineering, politics and law that build the Nuclear industry to understand it's very real problems. Anytime you want to come with an actual argument that changes my mind, feel free, but do bring some facts instead of parroting blatant Nuclear Industry propaganda.

Re:zero-risk?

[RichiH]

> As for the Titantic: how many passenger liner disasters have there been since her sinking?

How is that relevant to the people that drowned?

You seem to claim that this new type of reactor is as save as current ships because there have been reactors of other types built before. I do not follow that line of argument.

The question is: Would we be on the Titanic or its n-th gen successor?

PS: While I don't know enough about this new(?) design to comment on it, I do know that nuclear reactors are the only type of industrial hardware that does not need to be insured against the full damages that might occur. The large re-insurance corps told the governments that $5 billion is the absolute maximum and thus the nuclear industry got a get-out-of-paying-free card.

PPS: Guess who pays for the long-term storage of the nuclear waste? You and everyone else that pays taxes :)

PPPS: I am not saying that nuclear energy is bad or good. Just that in the current state it is not save in the long term and that it is _not_ economically feasible in the long term.

Why not?

[Enry]

- 1/2 the country doesn't believe what scientists tell them: evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs. Why believe them now?

- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.

- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless, so why do more research into thorium? (yes, U is getting in short supply now)

- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it. It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good news especially now that the unobtainium supplies have been cut off from Pandora.

Re:Why not?

[plover]

This is good news especially now that the unobtainium supplies have been cut off from Pandora.

We should have just nuked that planet from orbit, then swooped down and picked up the unobtainium from their hot, smurfy ashes.

But no, they had to send in some hot-shot Colonel who had to prove how tough he was by taking them on in hand-to-hand combat, and in the process showing all the greenies just how cute and cuddly the smurfs were. Idiot. Now we can't touch their planet at all because of the outcries from the eco-nuts.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought there was some random guy with a vast amount of it, but he died on a journey to the Earths core.

Re:Why not?

[QuoteMstr]

yes, U is getting in short supply now

Not true.

Re:Why not?

[Angst Badger]

It's worth noting that, unlike Intelligent Design or the flat-earthers, the public's fear of nuclear power does have some basis in reality. There have been extremely serious nuclear accidents -- Chernobyl being the worst of them so far -- and the energy industry is about as honest about the risks of energy technologies in general as the tobacco industry is about the health risks of smoking. Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown, but it's also been well-earned.

Personally, I'd like to see more of the newer reactor designs put into practice, but even so, the hair on the back of my neck stands up every time some politician bloviates about "over-regulation". Technologies that can render large swaths of the landscape uninhabitable in the worst-case scenario need extensive (and well-enforced) regulations, especially when the private industrial sector that will be running them is as notoriously corrupt as the energy industry.

Re:Why not?

[elsJake]

No new plants , but new units inside existing plants have.

Re:Why not?

[dogmatixpsych]

The people opposed to nuclear power are not generally the ones you stereotyped as not believers in evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs.

The people opposed to nuclear power generally ARE those who believe in evolution, global warming, and birth control.

Re:Why not?

[QuoteMstr]

bloviates about "over-regulation"

Good regulation is a bargain. In return for mandating strict safety standards, the government ought to provide assistance in meeting these standards. That's how it would work in an honest system, anyway. To some extent, we have that today, through government-subsidized insurance for nuclear power plants.

But really, most regulation has been used to bludgeon the nuclear power industry into impracticality. It'd be like the San Francisco anti-car lobby getting congress to pass a bill requiring all new cars to have eight redundant disc brakes per wheel. It's not honest regulation.

I'm all for holding the nuclear power industry to strict safety standards, but there is a point when additional regulation simply makes the whole exercise more expensive without an increase in safety.

Re:Why not?

[WheelDweller]

The reason "1/2" of the people don't trust scientists is because they were seduced by governmental money....or be put out of business. Over time, no matter who you are, money like this will erode your integrity.

Much like media; despite covering up anti-democrat stories, people actually *caught* stealing money and voting for several more years, with no mention on their news outlets....some news orgs contend that "corporations by their nature must be conservative, and so it's ok we're liberal for balance". [Nevermind they are owned by corporations, too.]

The media also played a central role in stomping out nuclear power. Just like The Hindenburg Disaster shut down commercial, lighter-than-air travel, Three Mile Island (and the associated "China Syndrome" movie from the same people) has just almost shut us down, compared to France. France gets 70% of their electricity from nukes; we get like 15-17, I believe.

And when people don't listen about STD's, it's because they're young and stupid. The media (again) has sold them the lie that contraception is 100%, so it must be safe to screw with wild abandon. SINCE IT ISN'T, they create more miserable people with no 'parents' to raise them, just one...possibly two kids to change diapers, the process repeats.

What's broken here isn't scientific notion: it's because of it.

I used to think it CRUEL to piss on an pregnant unmarried mother. "How mean is that?" I thought. But now that nearly 40% of our babies are born this way, I think I was wrong. That 40% becomes prison population and/or welfare cases, because they didn't get the necessary training to be competent adults.

There's a biological reason virginity (physical in women, physcological in men) has value, and it was called out something like 5,000 years ago. IT WORKS. Virginity isn't something you bring home like a party favor. It's *the* reason why more than half the marriages end in divorce.

Science isn't perfect; never has been. But one policy, *when*followed*properly* has lead broken, beaten civilizations to rule the world, change the maps and invent wondrous things: Christian morality.

You just have to study it, is all. The book won't read itself!

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1/2 the country that doesn't believe what scientists tell them are the same 1/2 the country that has been pushing for nuclear power as a solution to energy independance, and the same that nominated 2 presidents who pronounced it nucular.

Re:Why not?

[Eric S. Smith]

especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies

How would fuel cells have anything to do with keeping nukes unpopular?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuel cells are great if you want everyone to drive a car as expensive as a Porsche, albeit with the performance of a Pinto.

State enforced birth control is the biggest abortion in the history of man.

What do you think the USS Seawolf and USS Virginia class run on? Pink unicorns? Not all nuclear reactors are for civilian power generation.

TMI was contained, Chernobyl used a reactor design which was not used outside of Comecon.

Solar can be nice but still is not cheap enough.

Re:Why not?

[TheLink]

From your link:

"Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years"

"This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources are considered - 10.5 million tonnes (beyond the 5.5 Mt known economic resources), which takes us to over 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption"

80-200 years at current consumption rates isn't very long IMO.

1) If the USA and China replace all their coal and fossil fuel power plants with uranium nuclear reactors, that 200 years is going to be a lot shorter. And you'd have to start figuring out how to get more uranium in fancier ways. Saying that there must be other sources doesn't make it so. It's far from the old days of oil where it was just gushing out when you dig a hole.

As it is, my reading of the article sure doesn't give me much confidence that "Peak Uranium" would be that far away.

2) There seems to be only one company in the whole world that can build a reactor containment vessel in a single piece (to reduce risk of radiation leaks), and it's already build at max capacity (four per year). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms

3) After spending lots of money, resources and time on building reactors and the super expensive tools to build the parts to build them, and you hit "Peak Uranium" within 100 years, it might not be really worth it. Might be better to look for something else to bet big on.

Re:Why not?

[CastrTroy]

Yes but by that logic, we should ground all the planes, or stop using cars because there have been some disasters. Important things are to learn from our mistakes, and ensure that the same mistakes do not happen again. Cars get safer all the time because we use them, we learn new things, and we make them safer. Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones are all examples of this. We would have never discovered any of these things if it weren't for the fact that we drove cars. If we refuse to make any nuclear power plants, we can never learn to make them better.

Re:Why not?

[QuoteMstr]

Nice selective reading.

Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years

That's actually amazingly good. Consider 1) we're likely to explore for more reserves as we deplete current ones (and that we've done very little exploration so far), 2) nuclear fuel is such a small part of a reactor's operating budget that its price can increase tenfold with no impact on price of electricity at the meter, we're in good shape.

Re:Why not?

[Enry]

Going to a solar/fuel cell economy allows for portions of the country (southwest) to be blanketed with solar panels, taking water from the Colorado river and cracking it into hydrogen. You can then transport that hydrogen across the country in presumably a more efficient manner than running power lines hundreds of miles. Since the energy that a house or city needs is already available, no new nuclear plants (or major electrical generation of any kind) would be needed.

To say that solar is expensive is currently true. The hope (and it's starting to happen) is that the per-watt cost of solar drops as there's new advancements and production of cells ramps up.

Re:Why not?

[Enry]

And yet I don't see anyone protesting *for* nuclear power in their backyard.

Re:Why not?

[Angst Badger]

There's a difference in scale here that your argument fails to take into account. The consequence of a serious plane crash is a few hundred dead and a localized fire. The consequences of Chernobyl involved rendering a large area uninhabitable by humans for generations.

I'm in favor of nuclear power, but with a degree of caution proportional to the cost of failure. Equating a fender-bender with a core meltdown is indicative of the sort of recklessness that is precisely what worries the doubters.

Re:Why not?

[Chris Mattern]

- No new nuclear plants have been built in 30-ish years.

In the US. Many places elsewhere have been building them right along.

- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it. It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies

Global Warming is changing a lot of opinions really fast among the environmentally-minded. Solar technology is still an order of magnitude too expensive/inefficient and still suffers severely from the lack of an adequate energy storage technology for the over half the time when it's DARK outside. Fuel cells can't be a primary energy source--the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, bunkie.

Re:Why not?

[Dr. Spork]

great link, thx!

Re:Why not?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Public skepticism about nuclear energy claims may be overblown, but it's also been well-earned.

It should be noted that anti-nuke hysteria was strong well before either Chernobyl (moderately serious) or TMI (total non-issue, except to the insurance company who had to pay for a new reactor).

Those events did not cause the hysteria, they merely confirmed pre-existing hysteria (which developed with no real basis other than the KGB's disinformation campaign).

Re:Why not?

[Chris Mattern]

Chernobyl being the worst of them so far

It should be noted that Chernobyl was a) a design never used in the west because of its obvious safety flaws and b) then subjected to a testing protocol that in the west would've gotten the person proposing it locked up as a lunatic who was a danger to himself and others.

Re:Why not?

[ravenshrike]

Do you actually realize just how much water would be needed to power a significant portion of the US? The answer is, much, much more than the Colorado River, with all the other demands on it, can meet

Re:Why not?

[eternalfire1244]

I for one would be first in line for one if there ever was such a protest. I am sure to be the extreme minority, but the benefits of a nuclear power plant far outweigh any of the downsides I could come up with. The job creation at the site would be enough for me to support one coming to my city. A lot of industries are dangerous (ie, chemical plants, oil refineries) and have ways of managing the risk to the local population as well as legislation to prevent unsafe operation of the facility.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't have worked. In the line of self-righteous fairytale feel-goodery, either some undiscovered spacegeckos, rocket-trees or pirate ghosts connected with the ewya would have had destroyed the evil humans in orbit.

Re:Why not?

[definate]

"It is clear from this Figure that known uranium resources have increased threefold since 1975, in line with expenditure on uranium exploration. (The decrease in the decade 1983-93 is due to some countries tightening their criteria for reporting. If this were carried back two decades, the lines would fit even more closely.) Increased exploration expenditure in the future is likely to result in a corresponding increase in known resources."

"Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its "fertile blanket", can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor."

Read more, type less.

Re:Why not?

[definate]

I didn't like how the humans were arbitrarially bad, but I can understand that it can happen, and has happened.

This meant that almost all the way through the movie I felt sympathetic towards the smurfs... ... until colonel bad ass jumped in the mech suit and fucking stabbed that giant cat like thing! HOW FUCKING AWESOME WAS THAT! I JUST SAT THERE THINKING "HUMANS... FUCK YEAH"!

I'd like to see a spin off of this movie, where colonel bad ass goes around doing awesome things, like stabbing giant cat things with a mech suit.

Re:Why not?

[cheekyboy]

Excuse me, a lot of scientists dont believe in the humans causing global warming con either.
And a lot of the scientists on the UN panels are mostly beurocrats and not real climatologists.

There is lots of U, its just that its inside seawater and harder relatively to process than rocky ores.

If humans need to live, they will dig anywhere to find whatever they need , ignoring all greenies/laws, paper law books dont stop bullets.

Re:Why not?

[Dan541]

We have plenty of Uranium here in Australia. But we also have uneducated anti-nuclear coal loving hippies, so there is a ban on uranium mining.

Re:Why not?

[MtViewGuy]

But thorium is more widely available. Indeed, I'm sure India would be interested in the liquid flouride thorium reactor because only Australia has more proven thorium reserves than any other country on Earth, and that makes it very viable as a fuel for nuclear reactors to power India's rapidly growing economy.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, there are two of us!

Nukes in my backyard please!

Re:Why not?

[Solandri]

- uranium was thought to be pretty much endless, so why do more research into thorium? (yes, U is getting in short supply now)

The uranium fuel cycle requires refinement of U235 (which also happens to be the first step to making an atomic a bomb) and leads down a path which creates weapons-grade plutonium (an alternate material for making an atomic bomb). The thorium fuel cycle does not have this problem.

- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it. It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed,

Measured by deaths per GW-years of electricity generated (p. 241, fig 7.2.7), nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation man has invented. And yes, that stat includes Chernobyl. In terms of injuries per GW-years (p. 248, fig 7.3.4), nuclear is about the same as gas, oil, and hydro (coal is the safest). The public perception that nuclear power is dangerous is a myth perpetuated primarily by anti-nuclear and anti-development (mostly environmental) interests who quickly realized their main causes could be severely undercut by the establishment of nuclear power as a clean and cheap form of energy.

especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies

Solar is just about the worst energy-producing technology currently at our disposal. In a global survey of installed power systems, its cost per MWh (p. 122, fig 1) is roughly 10x-15x more than coal. Even wind does significantly better at 3x. Yeah it's great to dream, but solar is probably going to need another 50+ years of research and development before it's able to take over our wide-scale power generation needs economically.

Re:Why not?

[LandGator]

> - 1/2 the country doesn't believe what scientists tell them: evolution, global warming, birth control/STDs. Why believe them now? It's proven that half of all folks are below average.

Re:Why not?

[LandGator]

TheLink (130905) sayeth:

2) There seems to be only one company in the whole world that can build a reactor containment vessel in a single piece (to reduce risk of radiation leaks), and it's already build at max capacity (four per year). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms

So? Molten salt thorium reactors are not giant 'splosive teakettles. A site-welded containment would be just dandy, since they don't run at dozens of atmospheres of pressure. They run at local atmospheric pressure, or even below that, which is just one of the inherent safety features that BWRs and PWRs don't have. BWRs and PWRs evolved from USN designs made to fit into a small hull, sacrificing safety for compactness. We can redo it right, with molten salt thorium reactors which will slow down if overheated, as a part of their basic design.

3) After spending lots of money, resources and time on building reactors and the super expensive tools to build the parts to build them, and you hit "Peak Uranium" within 100 years, it might not be really worth it. Might be better to look for something else to bet big on.

Umm... did you forget to read the headline of this article. We're talking *Thorium* here, many times more plentiful than Uranium to begin with, and that was before we started using up Uranium to make Plutonium. This also puts paid to the specious straw man argument of your first point.

Re:Why not?

[TheLink]

The person I was responding to was talking about uranium.

Re:Why not?

[CastrTroy]

Even you count in the scale, there's been a lot more total deaths due to car crashes or airliner crashes than with nuclear plants. France gets 78% of their power from nuclear, yet the only accident I could find was 3 workers getting confined due to not using proper safety equipment. Probably a lot less than the problems we get with coal based power.

Re:Why not?

[MobyDisk]

Do people forget coal disasters because they are so common? Perhaps we need more nuclear disasters, so that they all blend together in people's minds and they treat them as common place.

Re:Why not?

[GabriellaKat]

>

- nuclear power still has the stigma of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl attached to it. It'll be tough to get public opinion on that changed, especially with advances in fuel cell and solar technologies

Not true also. The original "hippies" are all behind nuclear power now. They all want us to go and build them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html as shown by this article and a few others I dont feel like Bing'ing right now

Gimmick

[QuoteMstr]

On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe. Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.

On the other hand, if using a different fuel convinces members of the general public that nuclear power is safe, and allows the construction of new facilities in less than a decade, that's great, and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel. In short, it can be a PR win.

Re:Gimmick

[Rehnberg]

and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel. In short, it can be a PR win.

Based on the article, I'm not sure that thorium is an inferior fuel. At the very least, it seems more efficient and more abundant, as well as less dangerous than uranium. To me, that's more important than raw power output, especially given that thorium cannot be weaponized.

Re:Gimmick

[Suki I]

On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe. Using thorium instead is at best a minor improvement.

Same I was thinking. Saw something, years ago, where solid fuel pellets were assembled into rods and had the same effect as what the article describes in the liquid too. If they heat too much the pellets expand but do not rupture the tube and the reaction slows down. Isn't there a Someone notes a reactor in India that uses thorium already.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

The big reasons, as mentioned in both the article and summary, are that thorium is more abundant than uranium, the resulting waste is smaller and less radioactive, and it can't be used as part of a process to create nuclear weapons.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

Imho the problem is not primarily safety of operation, but safely storing radioactive wastes for thousands of years without the risk of contaminating the environment / water. Well, at least here in Germany they had contamination after a few decades, because their salt mine wasn't such a good place as they thought ... Ok, they didn't care much if it was safe I guess, it was only meant for testing purposes but got filled with lots of waste, when they wanted to get rid of it.
I wonder, how cheap nuclear power really is, if they include the billions of tax money that are spent to get rid of nuclear waste and cleaning up those places and repairing the damage, if something goes wrong.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, modern uranium reactors (pebble bed, or even well-made light water reactors) are perfectly safe.

the reaction process for modern uranium reactors may be safe, but their waste is not. This is, in my view, the primary benefit of breeder reactors. Their waste is only dangerous for hundreds of years, not millenia.

Re:Gimmick

[QuoteMstr]

Nuclear waste is hardly dangerous for millennia. Nuclear physics are such that a substance is either very radioactive for a short time, or slightly radioactive for a long time. After a few years in a cooling tank, the wastes will be of the latter form. They can then be vitrified (turned into glass) and put in a cave somewhere, where they'll be of no harm to anyone.

Yes, even low-radioactivity substances are still toxic heavy metals. But we know how to deal with heavy metals. If you don't agree, why aren't you up in arms about all industrial waste instead of focusing on the nuclear industry's?

Re:Gimmick

[naasking]

Thorium is a significant efficiency improvement over Uranium or Plutonium reactors, and this is disregarding the safety improvements inherent to a salt-based reactor. I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude it's a minor improvement.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear waste is hardly dangerous for millennia. Nuclear physics are such that a substance is either very radioactive for a short time, or slightly radioactive for a long time.

The Chernobyl area won't be safe for 900 years. I'd call that dangerous for milenia.

Re:Gimmick

[QuoteMstr]

Bullshit. People visit it all the time, and wildlife in the area is thriving. It's turned into a wonderful nature preserve.

Re:Gimmick

[arose]

People visit dangerous ares all the time. In the case of Chernobyl no one sane goes in without a Geiger counter.

Re:Gimmick

[LSD-OBS]

Correct. Switching to the thorium fuel cycle is an improvemet in almost every measurable way. It's far easier to obtain (surface mining would do just fine), it's cleaner, it's more efficient, and some reactor designs are automatically "load following" without any extra mechanical parts.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this some arbitrary statement with no backup material at all insightful? Is this insightful:

With the potential for vacum energy extraction in the coming decades, history will show that pumping money into developing thorium reactors was silly as nuclear energy was just a temporary stop gap measure. Far better of would society have been if the money had been spent on developing a better massage table.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chernobyl area won't be safe for 900 years. I'd call that dangerous for milenia.

At best it's unsafe for a millennium (1,000 years), but certainly not millennia (multiple 1,000s of years).

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't discount storage of waste materials. The State of California has a ban on the building of reactors until the waste storage problem is solved.

Re:Gimmick

[QuoteMstr]

Define "solved". The goalposts keep moving.

Re:Gimmick

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Perfect solution to the problems the Iranians are having with their gov't. Build it for them and they can voice no protest other than "we want the big bombs so the world will take us seriously."

Re:Gimmick

[JetTredmont]

I think the main argument against Thorium is that it isn't Uranium. While that may seem specious, the argument has some merit: we have a large body of knowledge in dealing with Uranium. We'll end up finding issues with large-scale Thorium reactors, just as we did when going from Uranium prototypes to large-scale Gen-2 reactors in the 1950s.

Of course, the other potential problem is the geographic dispersion of the mineral. Australia and India are the big winners there, although with the US coming in fourth (after Norway) so far as we know today, it's a bit better distribution than we have with oil (Uranium leaves the US as #8 in the world, but Canada is #1 by a long shot, and I think the US is more comfortable with that than with India in a similar position). Of course, the problem with this is that it's really a big unknown because we haven't really been looking for it.

Not to say we shouldn't do it, given all the benefits. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that it's a so-obvious-we-should-have-done-it-yesterday solution.

Re:Gimmick

[shutdown -p now]

Imho the problem is not primarily safety of operation, but safely storing radioactive wastes for thousands of years without the risk of contaminating the environment / water.

It's strictly a political problem, not an engineering problem. There are plenty of places on Earth which are uninhabited, with no opportunity to contaminate water, and geologically stable for time periods required for the material to become reasonably safe.

The problem is that not every country has one, and as soon as an arrangement for country A to pay country B for burying its waste on the latter's territory is made, the various ultraliberal greenies in country B (and soon elsewhere) start crying out loud about how it's yet another case of exploitation of poor by rich, how this will totally screw the environment in country B, how baby seals are sad about it, etc.

Re:Gimmick

[MtViewGuy]

When I read the article, they also noted that liquid flouride thorium reactors also need to a LOT less physical space than current light-water uranium fuel reactors. This means construction costs will also be way lower, making these reactors much more economically viable in the first place.

Re:Gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel?art_pos=9

Re:Gimmick

[naasking]

More than that, the power scales linearly with the plant size, so there's little incentive to invest in one huge reactor over multiple small ones. Thorium reactors encourage incremental investments over huge long-term planned, and likely heavily subsidized, investments.

Re:Gimmick

[naasking]

we have a large body of knowledge in dealing with Uranium

It's not the knowledge so much as the existing infrastructure and supply chains invested in Uranium. We'd need a whole new supply chain for Thorium.

Re:Gimmick

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Load following is a feature of molten salt, which can be used with U as well. In fact the demonstration reactors did use U. Also they are not just load following , they can in theory load follow well enough for peak power.

Re:Gimmick

[herbierobinson]

You are forgetting to consider the waste problem. The other life threatening issues pale in comparison. Waste from Uranium fueled reactors is dangerous for more than a million years -- I waded through the licensing materials for Yucca Mountain to find that little gem -- AFIK how much more than a million years is classified because the DOE doesn't want us to know. The Yucca Mountain depository was canceled because any sane (and uncorrupted) engineer reading the plans realized it was brain-dead.

The claim by the thorium reactor proponents is that there is less waste and waste products are safe within a few hundred years. If this is really true, they have a solution to the waste problem. That is a huge deal. Of course, it would be good to find confirmation of the waste claim: Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Gimmick

[QuoteMstr]

You are forgetting to consider the waste problem. The other life threatening issues pale in comparison

You have got to be kidding me. On the one hand, we're talking about climate change causing hundreds of trillions of dollars and ending our civilization as we know it, and on the other, there's the remote possibility of a few people being poisoned if they ignore multiple layers of warning signs written in multiple languages.

You're really telling me that the latter is the greater danger?

Re:Gimmick

[herbierobinson]

You are probably overstating the dangers of nuclear warming a bit (but not that much). But there is certainly nothing we can't adapt to if we have to. And of course "civilization as we know it" isn't going to be around 20 years from now no matter what happens: 20 years ago, we didn't have the Internet, Cell Phones, GPS and it just took me 20 seconds to think of that. My mother's house didn't have indoor plumbing when she was a girl!

But the important point is that you have no idea how dangerous nuclear waste really is.

Nuclear waste remains dangerous for more than million years. The "design" of nuclear waste disposal facilities involves making an educated guess as to how long it will be before the containers break down and then guessing whether the waste will decay enough before it gets into the water supply. So we are talking about the water supply for a huge geographical area being poisoned essentially forever, not a few people ignoring signs.

Speaking of signs, how do you write a sign an average person will be able to read 100,000 years from now (or even 1000 years from now)? You would need to predict 100,000 years of language evolution! The reality is that even within 1000 years, the only people who can read what we now call English will be scholars!

This just demonstrates how naive it is to assume we can construct anything that lasts for a million years.

In case you are curious, the Yucca Mountain plan was clever enough to realize they couldn't label the site as dangerous; so, they decided it was good enough if a typical drill bit wasn't likely to penetrate the containers when somebody drilled into the waste disposal site -- Mind you these are the same containers they know will deteriorate within one or two half-lives of the stuff inside.

Problems

[SteveAstro]

I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers. Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !

Re:Problems

[DoofusOfDeath]

Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !

Well, duh. We didn't mention it because it was so obvious! Most slashdotters have known that crap from, like, CS 201.

Re:Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

From your high school chemistry classes, you should remember that salts melt at very high temperatures because ions form strong bonds. "Molten salts" should therefore trigger the question "to be held and transported in containments and pipes made of what?"

Re:Problems

[QuoteMstr]

That sounds like a fiendishly difficult problem. What materials are you using for it? It seems like you'd have to basically use ceramics and... tungsten.

Re:Problems

[Pig Hogger]

one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !

Isn’t that what a flux capacitor is for?

Re:Problems

[DoofusOfDeath]

From your high school chemistry classes, you should remember that salts melt at very high temperatures because ions form strong bonds.

There's a lot of things I should have learned in my (AP) high-school chemistry class, but didn't. I'll take your word for it that what you mentioned should be on that list.

Re:Problems

[citizenr]

I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers. Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !

Why dont you setup a frequency harmonic between the deflector and the shield grid using warp field generator as a power flow ant.... blablabla?

Re:Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

pipes made of what?

Pipes made of interweb carrying goodness, my friend.

Re:Problems

[machine321]

No, a flux capacitor stores flux, or it can be used to smooth out the signal when converting AC flux to DC flux.

Re:Problems

[mister_playboy]

hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C

That actually sound much scarier than some radioactivity from bits of metal. Plain 'ol fluorine gas at STP is already very nasty.

I wish you luck.

Re:Problems

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I am working on the very periphery of the problem, designing equipment to measure the properties of hot radioactive molten fluoride... Clearly one of the problems which should be obvious is that we are looking at cutting edge material technology to work at these temperatures and neutron fluxes !

So... hows the neutron flux capacitor coming along? I think once that's taken care of buffering radioactive molten flouride should be a cinch!

Re:Problems

[sycodon]

I hear Unobtanium is good for that.

Re:Problems

[selven]

That's interesting. I learned about neutron fluxes in ST TNG.

Re:Problems

[sillybilly]

Yeah, no kidding! Most current reactors based on steam operate at about 200C, where there are plenty of structural materials that last decades . Temperatures near 1000C-2500C are an order of magnitude more thermodynamicaly efficient, but the very reason it's not currently done, is the construction material technology. Even in nonnuclear, such as natural gas or solar thermal, temperatures over 1000C would be better, but there is the same issue of consctruction material technology. One advancement that has become commonplace is the CNG plants, combined natural gas, where there is first a high temperature turbine stage before the conventional turbine technology, which ups the thermodynamic efficiency from about 30% useful work/70% waste heat, to 60% useful work, 40% waste heat - basically doubling the amount of electricity one gets from a mcf of natural gas. But that is relatively easy, because we have ultrahigh temperature turbine blades from military research on airplanes. Regular power companies have a hard time finding the money to look for new stuff, they are more concerned with making money TODAY, with what's proven and tested, so a bank will loan them the money to build a billion dollar contraption and amortize it over 30 years. The military does not have to jump such hoops, it's understood that what they are into is totally uncertain and without guarantees, but in military one cannot afford yesterday's proven and tried technology if there is something more cutting edge today. Power/energy company advances have to be sponsored/pushed by either obama/epa/nasa/military, a regular power company is simpy in the business of getting things done, not in looking for new stuff. These days however, they are swimming in so much cash from oil prices, maybe they can afford to run a research department as a luxury item. There is two sides to everything, even to nasty oil company business practices and ridiculous profits - now they can afford to do research, and build something even without a bank loan.

In any case, at very high temperatures, I'm more comfortable thinking about a solid object glowing white surrounded by an inert cooling gas like helium or argon, or even nitrogen or hydrogen (in non neutron appications, such as solar concentrators). Similar to an incandescent lightbulb, compared to a lightbulb that has a liquid salt as the glowing element. Solid objects also expand and contract with temperature, just like liquid salts, but they stay put, in the center of the reactor, and expensive thermal materials that need to be in immediate contact with them don't have to be used. The types of accidents and control issues that arise with liquid salts, with all their corrosion issues, they just leave one with an eerie feeling. A hot inert fluid such as argon, even in case of a catastrophic failure, is relatively safe to escape, and won't attack structural materials. The solids themselves stay contained in case of a failure, in case they stay solid. Chernobyl had liquid magma flowing out, a liquid meltdown. I don't know if there are any safe structural materials that sufficiently resist molten fluoride attack. Graphite is such a thing, but it's not very strong mechanically, so something like graphite lined tungsten or niobium/molybdenum alloys would be something to try, but even so the salt diffuses through the graphite to the metal. So, again, in the case of an incandescent bulb, the direct location fixing, solid contact, between the filament and something else is in a very limited, and cooled region, and regular glass can be used for the bulb surface because the contact happens through a gas or vacuum. Similarly a solids based pebble bed reactor would only need the bottom plate holding up the pebbels to be of some super material, also coolable, because the rest of the hot stuff would be insulated away by the bottom layer of pebbles. In case you're dealing with a liquid, the full containment material has to be the expensive stuff, or even cooled in a dynamic equilibrium just right. In case of molten salts, the cooling wil

Re:Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

1700 C radioactive molten fluorides? Material technology indeed! What's going to contain that for any reasonable length of time? (I'm not using sketchy logic to say it isn't possible, I'm genuinely curious).

Re:Problems

[sillybilly]

So, thorium fluoride melts at 1110C, boils at 1680C, so it's a high pressure gas at 3000C.
Thorium dioxide melts at 3390C, and boils at 4400C. At 3000C one could still have thorium dioxide pebbles, though they might react with a graphite vessel to form thorium carbide and carbon monoxide, or some thorium-carbido-oxide. How fast this happens and how physically stable it would be, I don't know. With a tungsten vessel, there may be no reaction at all. The problem with tungsten is a relatively high neutron capture cross section.
Thorium nitride melts at 2820C, so it is probably liquid at 3000C, but it may be sufficiently metallic to react with graphite, and form some kind of thorium-carbido-nitride, with evolution of nitrogen gas.
Graphite melts, or more exactly sublimates at around 3600C. Next is tungsten melting near 3400C, boiling at near 5500C.
I just found http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/NeutronCrossSection.ssp.log.html
At least for thermal neutrons, graphite is one of the best neutron resistant materials at neutron cross section b 0.0035 , and I had no idea that oxygen is by far the most resistant, at 0.00028. Helium is third at 0.007, but this gives me the idea of using carbon monoxide as the heat exchange gas medium, in case helium's moderating power is too high. Carbon monoxide may behave like an inert gas in presence of graphite and thorium dioxide, unless C2O type materials might form, but that's very entropically unlikely. Beryllium and fluoride are next, at b=0.0092 and 0.0096, then bismuth at 0.034. Neon(0.04), lithium(0.045), magnesium (0.063), lead(0.171), and the first structural metal with sufficient strength, high enough melting point, other than graphite is zirconium with neutron cross section b=0.184 for thermal neutrons. But Zirconium's melting point is 1855C, and thorium's 1752C. Argon is 0.65, the cheapest noble gas, but much more absorbing than helium, neon or carbon monoxide.

High melting materials near tungsten are high absorbing some more than others. Thorium itself is 7.4 so the materials themselves should beat thorium dioxide 3400mp in nonabsorbing neutron capacity. Here are some top melting materials

Tungsten is b=18.4 /mp 3400C, rhenium is 90/3200C , osmium 3030/15, tantalum 20.5/3020C, niobium 1.15/2477, molybdenum 2.6/2350C, thorium 7.4/1842, etc

Tantalum carbide Ta11C mp 3880, Ta1.0C0.89 4000C, niobium carbide 3490C, thorium carbide 2630C.

Besides niobium carbide, that leaves graphite as the only cheap, nonreactive and truly high temperature nuclear material far beyond 2000C, together with thorium dioxide as the fuel, with carbon monoxide and helium as the heat exchange fluids with direct contact with the fuel. The heat exchange fluid might still have to go through a graphite heat exchanger external to the core, so that nuclear decay outgassing contaminants from thorium, such as lead oxides are contained, and the 2nd heat exchange fluid as it goes through the decompression cycle in a graphite piston or other mechanical device, does not contaminate up the wall surfaces from such nonvolatiles dropping out on cooling. Graphite pistons are self lubricating, but they are very weak mechanically. One could still build a humongous heat engine graphite piston that operates at 3100C to 100C temperature drop, and a pressure drop of 3 atm to near vacuum exhaust pressure, with very slow motion, with the high pressure gases introduced on alternating sides during a decompression cycle that might take 2 minutes to complete. Imagine a 10m x 10m diameter graphite piston, with a travel length of 30 meters. Such sizes are necessary at low pressures. It's very hard to find something that will provide containment to 100 bars at 3000C, but that very high temperature to exhaust temperature ratio, and initial pressure to final pressure ratio is what's critical to energy harvesting efficiency.

With the piston construction however, hi

Re:Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] hot radioactive molten fluorides - in the region between 900-1700 C, for European nuclear researchers.

This is 1652-3092 F, for American nuclear researchers ...

Re:Problems

[CrazyChinaman]

You also have to factor in the costs for equipment that can handle water heated by a reactor that hot. Current PWRs heat primary water (stuff that touches the reactor) to ~550F / 2200PSIG. Which is fed through a steam generator that heats clean water into [saturated] steam that can be sent through a turbine to generate power. Then you'd need SGs that can transfer heat from the super hot water to the secondary side...which is kind of a crazy delta T.

Re:Problems

[SteveAstro]

I think part of the idea is to be able to "crack" water to hydrogen, with a catalyst and using the heat.

Re:Problems

[sillybilly]

Oh by the way that huge thermal expansion/contraction shockwaves of 3000C is devastating to almost any known material. Inside a positive displacement engine the materials have to be exposed to it, as the fluid cools via mechanical work done during expansion. In a turbine on the other hand there are different temperatures as the fluid travels through the different pressure zones, and a uniform steady hot or steady cold temperature is maintained, and thermal stress cycling does not happen. From this point of view it's important to have to fluid travel, and in localized pressure drop zones only change very minutely in temperature, and do so in a uniform manner along the path of flow. With very low pressures of 3 atm to 0.03 atm large volumes are necessary, and any turbine-type blades would have to be huge sail-like sized to exploit the small pressure differences. With 0.03 atm the volumetric energy density is very minor, and devices are gigantic barely producing a few watts. Of course the 3000C is almost certainly not the economical equilibrium choice between highest energy harvesting efficiency and capital cost of the device, but it does seem like a theoretical limit on upper temperature solid materials available, unless ultrahigh diamond-manufacture like pressures are applied, and a heat engine is operated under such conditions, and somehow some shaft power is extracted. Such a supercompressed material-based heat engine might find materials that are still solid even at 6000C. If one like that is ever built, it might be able to thermal harvest the Sun by direct heat exchange to equal temperature on one side, and huge radiative space vacuum cold absorbing radiator heat exchangers on the other side. It could be kind of a solar sail that's superpowered by the heat instead of just the solar wind, by capturing and ejecting wind particles at near light speed from a cyclotron/particle acccelerator powered by the heat engine. There are two temperatures making up heat engine efficiency, and the practical/theoretical but most likely not economical max high temperatures is near 3000C, and possibly even more important the cold side, with the max minimum theoretically imaginable being based on radiative heat exchange with the outer space universe background thermal radiation that comes in at near 10K, or -263C. The efficiency of a heat engine can be tremendously improved by dropping the available cold side temp, but again, huge heat exchanger surfaces would be required, and they would only operate in the vacuum of outer space (with no heat radiation from air interfering), turned with their back to the Sun, and extremely well insulated from thermal conduction from the sunny 6000C side to the ~10K cold side.

Re:Problems

[sillybilly]

I was half asleep when I wrote that, I think I fell asleep before I hit submit.

Re:Problems

[sillybilly]

I've been thinking about this some more, and with a turbine part at 3000C it would be difficult to find bearings that last. So the shaft would have to be extended long far from the hot zone and cooled before support. Most turbines in power plants are in the horizontal plane, but if one put them vertical, they would only have to be supported on the cold end of the shaft, the rest spinning like a top. There would be precession forces in a gravitational field on the top in case the shaft is not properly aligned vertical, but that could be stabilized with a long extending shaft on top, but this time a pin-like one, because the forces necessary to guide and keep the turbine into a vertical direction are much smaller than when full support of the weight is needed. Imagine a turbine with a 10 meter diameter axle, whose hot end is at 3000C, but from the center of the 10 meter dia axle there is a 3 inch segment protruding through a very long hole with tight clearance, and cold gas is blown through that hole at a flowrate of 1000:1, so it does not affect the temperature inside the turbine in the hot zone. By the way some of these concepts are applicable for lower temperatures too, even for 1500C turbines.

stupid questions at ends of articles

[Anonymous Coward]

"So why are we not building these reactors?"

This is a dumb choice of audience to ask that question. The one or two
nuclear scientists who already know the data are too smart to post here,
knowing that the rest of the google-capable nerds will "contribute" by drowning
them out.

Why do YOU think every article hase to end with a perfunctory "... and how do YOU
feel about this? ..." question?

I can't believe I spent time writing this.

Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

Uranium is also abundant and safe, but it's a lot better known than thorium. Thorium is promising, but there's no need for an alternative nuclear fuel at the moment (and probably won't be for a very long time). The nuclear fuel isn't what caused the Chernobyl disaster, it was the reactor, and huge amounts of research has been invested into new uranium based reactors with all sorts of properties making them safer and cheaper.

Thorium looks good and should be researched, but with nuclear fuel we're spoiled for choice. The idea that we need to find a new nuclear fuel for safety or cost reasons only damages the chance of people getting behind the fine technology we have/are-developing now.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[naasking]

Because we're scheduled to run out of easily mined Uranium within the next 10 years, unless the US's military stockpiles are released. Thorium is far more abundant, is safer since it can't be weaponized and it's meltdown-proof in liquid salt reactors, and more importantly, is much, much more efficient as a nuclear fuel. So I disagree with all of your points, save one: Uranium is not abundant or safe, but I grant you that Uranium is more well known; it's infamy can also be considered a problem however.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[khallow]

Hmmm, how about mining the slightly less easily mined sources? The people who mine uranium probably have some good ideas about how to make up the short fall when the price rises. I don't see why this is considered a serious problem. We'll just use up the stockpiled uranium, then as the price of fuel rods increase, we'll find a solution either recycling fuel rods or mining more uranium.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[QuoteMstr]

We have enough uranium for centuries. Don't lie. At ten times the current price, it even becomes economical to extract it from seawater.

And guess what? Even with uranium at ten times the current price, nuclear power would be cheap.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[naasking]

Nuclear is already expensive as it is, and mining and refining scarce Uranium sources will send the price of nuclear power through the roof.

Thorium is 4-5 times more abundant than the sum of all Uranium isotopes, ie. U-232 through to U-238, and Thorium is easily mined and refined.

Furthermore, the Thorium reaction is over 95% efficient in its use of fissile material; pure Uranium reaction efficiency is paltry by comparison, ie. the waste still contains plenty of fissile material but the mixture is no longer usable in the reactor.

There is no question that Thorium is and should be the future of nuclear fission. Its advantages are many, and its disadvantages are purely engineering challenges, and not significant ones at that.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[naasking]

Read the article I linked. Dr. Michael Dittmar composed a series of articles analyzing the future of the nuclear industry. The conclusions are his.

And nuclear is not as economical as you claim. Only if you eliminate all externalities associated with refinement, regulation and waste disposal does nuclear appear attractive on paper. "Meltdown-proof" reactor designs, like pebble-bed or molten salt reactors would significant limit the safety costs of operating a reactor, but only Thorium can increase the efficiency of the nuclear reaction as well.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[mellon]

Hm, how would you make a nuclear weapon using Thorium? If the answer is, "you wouldn't," then that makes Thorium a better choice than uranium.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't the reactor. Yes, there is a possibility of meltdown in graphite modulated plants, but they are still around and they are safe if you don't disable the safety systems and crank it up to 11 just to see what happens. That's what caused the disaster.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[wzzzzrd]

Since I was ten years out of school I stopped believing anything following the pattern of ...is going to run out/ be destroyed/ will definatively happen in X years. I remembered that a school book told me that 10 years from that time, all of the rainforest will be destroyed.

In 10 years the chance is pretty high that some more easily mined uranium will be found. They find new oil fields every other week.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[narcberry]

Th-232 produces U-233 which is the actual fuel for the reaction. U-233 can also be used to create nuclear weapons.

This article claims thorium reactors remove the threat of proliferation, but that is incorrect. This article gets 2 thumbs down for misleading the audience. We don't need to lie to people to make nuclear technology an acceptable energy source.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to your left neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new nuclear power plant and and uranium enrichment facility. Yeah you can try arguing "oh but it's clean now" "oh but it's safe now". They'll probably still mumble something like nuclear weapons under their breath.

Now go to your right neighbour and ask them what they think of building a new power plant harnessing a fuel that is safer, cleaner, and more efficient than uranium, promising to solve the worlds energy crisis and global warming at the same time.

The problem with nuclear power in the last 10 years has definitely not been the technology. The problem is the people in your electorate, the politicians who know that the dumb public will vote against them in spite if they so much as consider building more nuclear power plants, and naturally the greenies who still haven't pulled their heads out of the sand under Chernobyl.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[Anonymous Coward]

mining and refining scarce Uranium sources will send the price of nuclear power through the roof.

Citation needed.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[khallow]

Nuclear is already expensive as it is, and mining and refining scarce Uranium sources will send the price of nuclear power through the roof.

I have to agree with the AC replier. Nuclear may be expensive, but it's not because uranium sells for a lot on the market. The low supply is due in large part to artificially low prices for uranium. As the stockpiled uranium is consumed, we'll then have higher uranium prices and the economic incentives in place to mine more uranium. Even a substantial increase in the price of raw uranium isn't not in my view significant compared to the costs of making uranium fuel and the bureaucratic costs of running a nuclear power plant.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes there is. iran wants nuclear power? fine they can have something that can't be weaponized.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[MtViewGuy]

I remember as early as the 1910's everyone thought we were going to run out of crude oil within ten years. About a century later, much of the world's known oil supply has yet to be tapped using 2010 oil extraction technology, especially with the development of steam injection, CO2 injection and injection of detergent-like liquids which could revive a lot of supposedly "tapped out" oilfields. Indeed, the Russians are using these new technologies to extend the life of several known oilfields inside their country. And we now have the technology to extract oil in the VERY deep oceans, and that could open up potentially gigantic oilfields in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Norway.

In short, the shortage problem is more a political issue than technology issue. We know that Iraq and Iran have potential reserves that could equal everyone else in the Persian Gulf combined, but the unstable political situation in both countries have conspired against the use of current extraction technologies that could really open up these oilfields. Is it also small wonder why China is very interested in the Spratley Islands between Vietnam and the Philippines, which could be the location of a huge undersea oilfield?

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[naasking]

As I explained in another post, there is a good reason why the U-233 produced in a Thorium reactor does not lend itself well to weaponization. Thorium reactors do decrease proliferation risk, and this is well known.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[naasking]

As I responded to another comment in this thread, the analysis is provided in the article I linked to by Dr. Micheal Dittmar. I'm not just pulling numbers out of a hat here.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

And so lying to them that Thorium is so much safer than our dangerous Uranium based reactors, because we know so much less about the dangers, is supposed to help?

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

There are uranium reactors that have no application to a weapons program (and Iran refuses them, they want to enrich. wonder why.), and Thorium isn't without proliferation risks (U233 is a byproduct of the Thorium decay sequence and it has theoretical proliferation risks)

There is really nothing much to recommend Thorium over Uranium except that we know less about it.. We should research it, but throwing ourselves at Thorium at the expense of all the knowledge we've built up on Uranium reactors would be completely stupid. That's why no-one outside of tech-news-sites would take such a suggestion seriously.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

Lots of things caused the disaster.. my point was it wasn't something inherent about Uranium..

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

Well no-one has put much effort into researching Thorium as a nuclear weapon material, but theoretical research does suggest that U233, a byproduct of Thorium decay, could have nuclear weapon applications.

"But no-one knows much about those proliferation applications!" Okay, but that has advantages and disadvantages. We know the proliferation risks regarding uranium so well that we know exactly what to look for when someone is trying to create a bomb with it.

Just because we know any risks regarding Thorium doesn't mean there aren't any, and we should research it to learn them.
However meanwhile we know Uranium, Uranium reactors, Uranium weapons manufacturing techniques inside out, and with anything nuclear-related ignorance should never be a source of comfort.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

To assume that this guy is right would mean that right as tens of billions of dollars of investments in new nuclear plants are only just beginning we will run out of the fuel they will use.

It's one of these "either this guy is wrong, or everyone else is wrong" scenarios. This guy isn't in the uranium mining industry. His series of 4 papers are clearly intended to say "nuclear power has no future", and he is attacking the amount of uranium reserves in that context, not as a scientist looking for truth but as a douche claiming an authority way outside his field.

(Looking at the comments section on that blog post now plenty of people have done better research on this guy and his theory than me)

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[kestasjk]

From the final of his four "papers" (right after he literally cites a fable of the emperor who wore no clothes):

Acknowledgments This report and especially chapter IV about the “Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fic- tion” is a result of many unanswered questions which the author asked over the past few years directly to scientists active within the fission and fusion research community. Essentially none was answered and essentially no help was provided to get in contact with the corresponding “fission” and “fusion” experts. Thus, in some kind of “hobby” research, which included discussions with friends, colleagues and many believers in a never ending technological progress, the different pieces concerning the future of nuclear energy summarized in this report came together.

Oh dear..

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[khallow]

I looked at his report. There are two things to note. First, he's warning of a short term supply problem, not a long term one. It can be fixed simply by releasing some of the strategic stockpile now combined with increase of supply from mining later. Second, even if that doesn't happen, price of uranium and the supply of uranium from mining and other sources will go up. My view is that within ten years of any price shocks from the sudden contraction of supply, uranium supply will again be adequate.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[khallow]

Only if you eliminate all externalities associated with refinement, regulation and waste disposal does nuclear appear attractive on paper.

A lot of those externalities are imposed by government or society not by the nuclear industry. For example, regulation. Waste disposal is another area where NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard hysteria) is allowed to drive up the cost of storing nuclear waste.

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[narcberry]

While true, the article states the proliferation risk is "none", which is not true. All it takes is one clever chemist/physicist to upgrade "none" to "practical".

Re:Why move to Thorium?

[naasking]

Considering the proliferation risk of Uranium is already relatively practical, we've lost nothing by switching, and potentially gained significantly.

Only a bridge ore

[wembley fraggle]

These days, people only mine Thorium while they're working on getting their skill up to the Fel Iron and outlands level. One thing worth noting is that somewhere in the past few patches, they've made it so you can mine Fel Iron at 275, which is pretty nice. No more running around the Eastern Plaguelands looking for Rich Thorium Nodes for those last few points when you'd rather be in Hellfire Peninsula.

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Laebshade]

I was waiting for this. Thanks.

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow has the best kind of Thorium, and the safest of any nuc fuel

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Bigjeff5]

You must have missed the one above, then. This one is funnier though.

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Lord of Hyphens]

Thorium apparently also makes good railgun and particle blaster ammunition.

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Anonymous Coward]

Came for this. Leaving satisfied.

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but back in the day, there was a decent chance to get some Arcanite! DO you know how much that's worth?

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA!!!!

Re:Only a bridge ore

[Boldoran]

Now we need one for Dwarf Fortress

Re:Only a bridge ore

[DarthVain]

OMG this is funny.

I just started playing the first toon I made in WOW that I had abandoned a long time ago. Anyway he was 57, and I got him to 58 quickly so I went to Outland but found that my Mining was only 245 so couldn't mine there. Well I didn't want to get too into quests there and not mine and have to go back, so I went back and started running around Searing Gorge mining Thorium. I made it just over 280 before getting fed up in disgust. That was this weekend.

I was just about to comment jokingly how much of bitch it is mining Thorium Ore a la WOW, when I read you comment. I can't believe I found out about this VIA Slashdot. It seems every patch makes every WOW article and website obsolete all the time.

Anyway I know I am off to Outlands tonight! Weee!

Leaks

[QuoteMstr]

there is a chance that some [radioactivity] will leak out.

Err, yes. Why didn't I realize that before? You've really opened my eyes. Radioactivity can get into the environment! OH MY GOD! LET'S BAN SMOKE DETECTORS. THEY CONTAIN TEH RADIOACTIVITY.

Re:Leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Americium, Fuck yeah!

Because nuclear is still "scary"

[Rehnberg]

I brought this article up in my government class a few weeks ago (we spend more time discussing what the government is doing than how it's set up), and I couldn't convince a single person that this new kind of reactor was safe. Let's face it: years of not building reactors combined with years of scare tactics from our government about other countries building reactors can't be undone with science. Propaganda > Science

Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea similar to how Governments around the world have convinced everyone that Marijuana is a dangerous substance. Without providing one case of someone dying from it all the while pushing, Opiate and Coca based drugs. At the same time ignoring the dangers of alcohol and tobacco. Although in recent years tobacco legislation has picked up. But alcohol statistics don't take in all the people that commit violent acts while drunk (Smack their wives, children , other citizens...etc etc etc). Just my 2

Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"

[lsmo]

I didn't want that to be anon. I posted the parent

Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"

[nadaou]

Propaganda > Science

yeah, but science has a much longer half-life.

Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why, incidentally, we'd need scientific propaganda.

Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the people in your class couldn't be convinced of the safety of nuclear power, then they are on the same level as the woman who told reporters that she was more afraid of "man-made" radiation from Three Mile Island than she was of the "natural" Radon gas that was prevalent in her community. Statistically speaking, TMI resulted in about 1 additional death to cancer than what would have occurred from natural radiation. It's about as rational as the ban on DDT.

Re:Because nuclear is still "scary"

[sjames]

Perhaps different terminology will help. Ask instead how safe the megatons of CO2 from coal fired plants makes them feel. How safe is it to shut down your heater in the dead of winter when the cost goes too high? Perhaps we should figure out how much radon is emitted by the radium coal plants release into the atmosphere (it's important, radium is the stuff that makes cool watches, radon is the "invisible killer" in your basement).

Because...

[perrin]

The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately, since we hold a lot of the world's known reserves of the stuff (as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world). The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet. By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away. It is a very complicated technology, and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about. Several studies, for instance from MIT, cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective. Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly. Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products, and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium, it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.

So it may be the future, but apparently no silver bullet.

All this is IANANP (I Am Not a Nuclear Physicist) so I guess someone reading ./ can answer this better than me.

Re:Because...

[Bigjeff5]

You know India uses thorium reactors, right?

Somebody must not have told them how impossible it was, or how many years it would take, or how it wasn't cost effective.

Stupid Indians (with a dot, not feathers).

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

considering it's in TFA. >. I JUST read the same thing in wired....

either way, to break down the article (which i'm assuming its correct, but IANA Numclear physicist either) -- its is AT LEAST 20-50% more efficient, requires NO buffer zone(because it is self regulating for heat... so no melt down), and has extremely little for biproducts at the end of it's cycle.

According to the wired article I read in the mag., the entire reason the US went with uranium as oppossed to thorium is BECAUSE they wanted the biproducts for weapons in the day (cold war). The cold war was the reason.

Other than that there is already a group running amuck trying to at least partically convert the current reactors to take a little thorium in their loads, which makes them something like 20% more effectient at making electricity and does not leave stuff behind to make bombs from.

so that is the point. change of directives from absolute power generation w/o biproducts instead of the cold war nuclear security issues.

The tech has been around since the time they started to think about the uranium reactors, so it's not new...more like forgotten tech. It looks awesomely promising should you read the wired article. ...which i can't link because of where I am posting from.

Re:Because...

[Vellmont]

That's a lot of claims. Do you have any cites for any of them?

The article say thorium does NOT have to be enriched. A quick look at the the isotopes of thorium wikipedia article confirms that Th-232 is the only isotope of any real abundance. That's a bit of a major error on your part, and casts doubt on the reliability of the rest of your post.

Re:Because...

[naasking]

By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.

The designer of the molten salt Thorium reactors ran his reactor non-stop for over 10 years IIRC. This was in the 1960s. What is unproven exactly?

Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium,

Which we will run out of in 10 years.

Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,

And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies? If Thorium really is harder to refine or weaponize than Uranium, we'd be better off switching to Thorium, so you contradict yourself.

Also, Thorium reactions do not produce plutonium. The fact that Thorium reactions do not produce weaponized by products is one of its huge advantages, above and beyond its abundance and higher efficiency as nuclear fuel when compared to Uranium.

Re:Because...

[Count_Froggy]

There are several countries in the Middle East who want new forms of reliable power and don't want to be targets for terrorists.
Thorium has the potential to generate power cheaply and without bomb-making potential; unlike uramium. As to the 'enrichment' question, once separated as a metal from the ores (a basic technology every metal needs to be recovered from the ground in any quantity), Thorium does not need enrichment. The primary isotope for nuclear fuel usage is the +90% content component. There are technical issues to solve, but the main issue to the willingness to concider nuclear power and forgo bombs.

Re:Because...

[Vellmont]

Also, Thorium reactions do not produce plutonium. The fact that Thorium reactions do not produce weaponized by products is one of its huge advantages

That's not quite true. Thorium reactors produce U-233 (which is the actual fuel, thorium itself is not fissile). U-233 can and has been used to produce nuclear weapons.

Re:Because...

[Sulphur]

Avoiding a dot Indian boom?

Re:Because...

[machine321]

Stupid Indians (with a dot, not feathers).

How do you think they power all those casinos?

Re:Because...

[naasking]

The U-233 generated in a Thorium reactor is consumed in the Thorium reaction itself to sustain the reaction. It would take significant effort to extract it in a usable form. The proliferation danger is significantly lower when compared to our existing nuclear infrastructure.

Re:Because...

[ee2go]

Not quite. The current Indian reactors use Thorium instead of depleted Uranium to even the core temperature. Even the next generation AHWR reactor will only use Thorium as part of the fuel (from here: http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/SMR/smr-status.html):

In India, construction is expected to start early in the next decade on the first 300 MW(e) advanced heavy water reactor, which has been developed for co-generation applications. The reactor is designed to operate with 233U-Pu-Th fuel; it uses boiling light water as a coolant and heavy water as the moderator.

Re:Because...

[joocemann]

Since you're not qualified as a nuclear physicist, I'd like to see your references.

Re:Because...

[cheesybagel]

India has low uranium reserves, but plenty of thorium reserves. That is why they are researching the stuff. Norway is spoiled by having petroleum reserves, so it is hardly surprising they do not give the matter much consideration.

AFAIK the problem is not that thorium energy production is unfeasible, rather that it is poorly researched.

Re:Because...

[senselesswaster]

Enrichment means increasing the ratio of the U-235 isotope (which is the fissile fuel for the reactor) to the non-fissile U-238 which is not fissile. Uranium as mined is only about 0.7% U-235. This is not enough to sustain a nuclear chain reaction so it is enriched to 3~5% for used in most power reactors. This is why 99.3% of all the refined uranium is of no use for power generation in typical reactors (it is called depleted uranium). This is also why people who talk about "peak uranium" should be careful to specify U-235, there is plenty of U-238.

Thorium does not need to be "enriched". A thorium reactor first converts Th-232 to U-233 which is fissile. All of the Th-232 can potentially be converted to U-233.

Re:Because...

[BruceSchaller]

Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.

Sorry, there is only one naturally occurring isotope of Thorium, therefore there is no enrichment to do.

It will however be necessary to kick start a reactor running pure thorium with something else. You can't just build up a mountain of the stuff and get a reaction going. I think that Thorium is great from a PR perspective because it's not Uranium! People are so scared of what they can't see it's crazy.

Nuclear power isn't as complicated as one might think. It all comes down to something that can boil water, to drive a turbine....pretty similar to what you do when you drive to work.

Re:Because...

[ThatsNotPudding]

By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away...

Boy, that sounds familiar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion.

Re:Because...

[epiteo]

the enrichment process is more difficult and costly

What enrichment process? Do you mean the chemical extraction of Thorium? How could that be expensive compared to cost of enriching U-235?
There is only one kind of Thorium (Th-232) when you mine it. Turning it to U-233 requires neutrons but you are supposed to get enough extra of those when you burn the U-233 to make it economical.
Best explanation of the process I have seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

Re:Because...

[LandGator]

perrin (891) babbled:

The debate has been ranging here in Norway lately, since we hold a lot of the world's known reserves of the stuff (as opposed to many wild guesswork assumptions about possible reserves around the world). The reason why not more reactors are built is quite simply because the technology is not there yet. By most accounts, a functional prototype reactor is 20 years away.

Those accounts neglect the functional prototypes already built, such as the one which first lit up at Oak Ridge in 1965.

It is a very complicated technology, and more difficult to engineer safely than uranium reactors that we currently know a lot about. Several studies, for instance from MIT, cast doubt on whether thorium reactors will even be cost effective. Extracting thorium from the ground is harder than for uranium, and the enrichment process is more difficult and costly.

Enrichment? Bull-pucky. All you need is garden-variety thorium, no discrimination between isotopes is required. The same stuff that's been in Coleman lantern mantles for decades works just dandy. And, to improve the cold startup issue, add a Farnsworth Fusor (yeah, Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventory of practical TV) to generate neutrons cheaply from deuterium, neutrons to speed up startup.

Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,

"The high reactivity of fluorine traps most fission reaction byproducts."

Which you keep in the reactor and burn up, for unlike Generation I-III reactors, you can keep using thorium fuel in a molten salt reactor far longer than in a uranium-fueled PWR or BWR and thereby burn off the high-level fission daughter products, extracting much more power from the fuel and simultaneously greatly reducing waste to be stored. "The bulk of the fission product elements remained stable in the salt. Additions of uranium and plutonium to the salt during operation were quick and uneventful, and recovery of uranium by fluorination was efficient."

and if you have enrichment capabilities for thorium, it is not a far step further to produce weaponized plutonium.

Straw man. No enrichment is required.

Chuck Hansen's THE SWORDS OF ARMAGEDDON is just one instructive source I've read on atomics. Better to light your lamps with nuke power than to curse the darkness, eh?

Re:Because...

[Dogtanian]

Thorium will also produce dangerous, radioactive by products,

And Uranium produces candy canes and puppies?

Yes, of course it does! Unfortunately they're *highly radioactive* candy canes and puppies.

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't trust the nonsense report from the Norwegian governmental department that you've obviously read: de er en gjeng tullinger (they're a bunch of fools) who want to avoid anything that resembles practical and tangible solutions while they're busy fleecing and destroying a society drowning in mediocrity and self-destructive ultra-naive snillisme ("good-ism"/"kind-ism"). The only kind of work the leftists approve of is the make-work kind of work where they think they can continue to inflate their base of support (it has worked for half a century so why would they stop now?).

Please don't vote for them (Ap, SV, or Sp) or those far too close for comfort ("Rødt og røkla", H, and V --quite astonishing mix really) since we and everybody else on this planet need something much better in and from our governments. And yeah it's that same old "contrarian" party so many seem to love to hate and spite which yet again has shown and continues to show far more interest in attempting to actually do something worthwhile (FrP). That's the only party in Norway that is open to anything nuclear beyond that old test reactor, or for that matter the only party that is seriously acknowledging any of the problems people in our country face instead of hiding the issues under torrents of worthless platitudes.

Rant over.

Re:Because...

[georgewilliamherbert]

Actually, the specific reactor proposed here - a Thorium Fluoride liquid material reactor - is high up on a "What if we wanted to make a shortest/cheapest path to weapons grade fissile materials?" list of candidate technologies, because you can continuously chemically process the U-233 parent material out of the salt bath and divert a direct weapons grade output stream without extensive difficult dirty post-processing.

It's funny how some nuclear power people can look at a technology and see "safe power" when weapons oriented technical experts think it's a great path to weapons.

One has to be realistic - anything nuclear related has potential for weapons use. This includes medical isotopes and industrial radiation sources (dirty bombs), any reactor inputs or outputs (dirty bombs, or potentially nuclear weapons). However, this is energy we're talking about. We have weapons grade concentrations of potential explosive materials in and around most major cities - look at a how common propane tanks are, and natural gas is piped almost everywhere. Gasoline is toxic and its vapors are explosive, and yet it's sold openly to anyone with a car (or moped, or kart), including illegal aliens and children. Lethal and weapons-grade quantities of electricity are available in practically every home and office.

The nuclear industry can, unfortunately, output truly citybusting class devices if it's not careful. It takes some effort to do that much damage short of actual atomic weapons. But civilization needs to be careful with energy. We generally pay it not enough heed.

Re:Because...

[naasking]

The Thorium Fluoride reactor was abandoned in the 60s because it did NOT have a high proliferation potential when compared to pure Uranium reactors. The US wanted weapons-grade Plutonium and Uranium to stockpile weapons during the Cold War and Thorium Fluoride couldn't cut it.

Surprise! Business model problems...

[dfay]

According to this (see the section called "Fuel cycle concerns"), because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money, they would need to change their business model to cope. We all know how much companies like to do that.

So, you combine the politicians' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power, and the entrenched industry's lack of interest in the business model, and it's suddenly easy to explain.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[joocemann]

I would gladly pay the same price, and even up to 40% more for my energy if I knew it was 100% from this source.

If electric cars and rails became mainstream, I would pay 200% of my current electrical costs for it... not because it is harder to get, but because if they asked me for it and they can be shown to be operating cleanly, I would easily pay that.

It's kinda like the difference between a quality product and a cheapo dollar store or walmart/oldnavy product. You pay more because the value is there. In this case (can the denialists not cry this time?) our respect for our environment and the added bonus of fully electrical infrastructure would be highly valuable to me.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[Idarubicin]

...no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money...

Fuel enrichment isn't a flat requirement for uranium reactors. Heavy water reactors (in use in Canada, India, and elsewhere for more than forty years) do not require isotope-enriched fuel. The cost of heavy water is offset by the savings on fuel.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[narcberry]

You green types need to rethink what "clean" means. Because whatever you think that is, it can only exist in the past and only for a short period in the past.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this (see the section called "Fuel cycle concerns"), because there is no need to refine the Thorium fuel, which is the stage where the nuclear power companies currently make their money, they would need to change their business model to cope. We all know how much companies like to do that.

So, you combine the politicians' lack of desire to risk being associated with nuclear power, and the entrenched industry's lack of interest in the business model, and it's suddenly easy to explain.

I'm not a capitalist myself, but I can appreciate that Capitalists are quite good at optimizing their profits. At some point if you are correct that uranium is becoming scarce and expensive it will become cost effective to switch to alternatives. I of course realize that these same capitalists are quite adept at shifting costs like environmental damage, spent fuel disposing, etc to others but that can't go on indefinitely. At some point the true costs of a particular technology becomes unavoidable.

To put it another way, the "invisible hand" of market forces invariably affects even the most powerful companies. For example, at one time the railroad barons dominated economic life in this country (think Stanford University) but few remember this today.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[shutdown -p now]

You green types need to rethink what "clean" means

"Clean" means "reasonably clean". If that's not clear enough, that means "as clean as physically possible, given the current level of tech, while letting me enjoy the technological advances of modern civilization unhindered".

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[CrazyChinaman]

The power companies themselves do not refine fuel. They don't design reactors. Everything in a nuclear power plant is bought and installed. All they do is run the equipment.
You've got to convince Westinghouse (fuel and reactors), Areva (fuel), and several other secondary companies (need equipment to deal with superheated steam, instead of merely saturated).
If you gave the actual power companies a cost effective and vetted thorium plant design, they would take it. But until then, everyone's eyes are set on Westinghouse's AP-1000 design for the next decade or two.
The fact that thorium takes less processing should encourage fuel makers because it's less work for them, while still selling fuel at a profit. But like a poster said, the actual fuel cost isn't why a nuke plant is hard to build. It takes 15-20 billion to build a 2-reactor plant right now. Getting that kind of funding is what's keeping them from being built.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[narcberry]

That's the most vague definition I've ever seen. Besides, a self-referencing definition isn't really a definition.

When you actually try to define 'clean', you'll realize you have such a narrow definition, that no technology or natural process can satisfy it.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[joocemann]

That B.S. and now you're just playing semantics.

Lets discuss the wide scope of the word 'clean'.

-I sharpen up my clothes a bit before I go out, I'm 'clean'

-You see a dog turd on the kitchen linoleum. You grab a wipe and scoop it up. The linoleum is now 'clean'. But would you eat off it?

-You take a poo and you wipe your butt 'clean' with tissue. If you don't live in the world of the bidet, chances are you've got plenty of fecal residue attached in a soft material-oily film over the hairs growing in your private area. Most people would say they cleaned it, but... well.. I'd kiss a clean armpit.. and i'd kiss an earlobe... but just because we call *that* clean, doesn't make it clean enough for me to kiss... eeggh.

-You're not eating your broccoli. Mom says "Clean your plate" You eat the last bite but there are little crumbs still there and some melted cheese and yet Mom is satisfied that you have done it. Wtf with the cheese and crumbs then?

-Now you're done with dinner and mom says go clean the dishes. You put them in soapy water and scrub a bit, rinse with some cold water and put them on a rack. Now THAT is starting to seem clean, right? Oh wait... I wouldn't use that plate for putting surgical medical supplies on!

-You go to the dentist and he says your tooth had a nice horizontal 'clean break'. While somewhat true from the natural eye view, under a microscope the break is extremely topographic/jagged. Not really a clean break.

-The dentist wants to use clean tools to operate with. They are appropriately sterilized and are truly about as clean as shit gets.

--------

My point is that the term is most definitely used with a sense of *relativity* tied to the statement. Most people that are in support of a move to green energy technology roll out are not being unrealistic. You are pretending they are unrealistic simply because if it were true, people would support your implicit stance that nothing can be done. That's a straw man, though. GTFO = get the fallacy out.

I'll tell you right now if there is a turd in the hot tub, and we're all sitting in it, we don't have to have a meeting and talk about exchanges of money and resource before I make my own move to get that turd the hell out of the tub. I'm not even thinking of asking you for 5 bucks if *I* am the one who gets the turd out. I just want the turd out of the tub; I wish you did too, but whatever, I can still get the turd out.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[narcberry]

I'm not trying to play semantics. Let me clarify what I mean, so your scrutiny is properly placed, because I'm sure you still won't agree with me. :)

For example, let's say, for one issue, climate change, we define clean as, "less than 350ppm" (yeah I can cram commas into a sentence like no other). As you point out, and I agree, this definition is different for different topics. I claimed that such a definition of clean cannot be satisfied naturally, or through technology. Keep in mind, I said that with your clean power in mind, not your clean dishes.

-Naturally-
Most C02 emissions are not man-made. Due to some natural cycle that we do not fully understand, the planet has become unclean. As the earth passes through future states, and exposed to a sun passing through future states, our definitions of "clean" will become more and more radical, but the earth will never meet them since it will continue to change in new ways.

-Technologically-
Frankly, you could create a technology that meets your standard of "clean" (solar cells manufactured using nuclear power, or whatever). However, the earth continues to change due to natural processes, and is now unclean despite your 0 emission cells. So technology can only win if it counters the natural process. We're talking about a technology with the potential to terraform, and even then, earth will continue to evolve, making it more and more difficult to counter natural trends. C02 today, Sulfur tomorrow, hyper-UV, and inevitably a dead sun. Technology, like man who created it, will always be insignificant compared to greater natural forces.

I propose a different definition of clean. Clean = natural.

Now I doubt you agree with me to this point, but I'm sure you won't agree with me after.

Consider what would happen if we didn't bury our trash or nuclear waste, didn't reduce C02, nor do we dilute toxic emissions?

You'd get the opposite of clean, a dirty earth, polluted and unusable? No, you end with a clean earth.

There are bacteria that have been able to recently (as in our lifetime) evolve and are capable of breaking down some polymers. This is one of the biggest dangers to wildlife, yet a bacteria has found a way to eliminate it.

When exposed to radiation, bacteria build a resilience (well the unresilient die, but after a couple generations...).

My point is simple. Green-types want to go back to yesterday, because of their definition of clean. But I think the earth's definition of clean is a different world where you can throw your plastic bottle to the side of the road, and the local life will use it to their benefit.

When earth doesn't suit us anymore, an absolute inevitability, we move on; although hopefully before it doesn't suit us.

We're robbing ourselves of an earth that suits our needs, by trying to isolate ourselves from earth. Why are we trying to reduce the CO2 levels on earth, and never even consider how can we adapt to the inevitable change?

Your clean power will not alter climate change, benefit the animals, mankind, or earth. It will cost you more money each month though, and as long as you're happy to pay it, whatever.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[joocemann]

What you tied into one idea is actually two distinct ideas. They are distinct because the first one is agreeable, but the second is not.

Your ideas, made clearer for discussion:

1) Clean = natural; don't set ambiguous numbers based on a specific timepoint or observation, but rather relative to natural systems.

2) The actions of mankind are always natural, and thus they ought carry forward without regard; natural processes will still ensue.
----

The first one is sensible. It a good idea to use the natural system as a reference in a realtime basis. Ambiguous thresholds based on specific time points or postulations are not in line with the natural change of the earth without man's influence. I would agree with you on the idea of embracing an effort to maintain a natural, or close to natural system, given we define the word natural in a relevant term such that we are talking about how the Earth's systems would work without the modern man's influence.

But I can't agree with you. And in such amazing irony you claim you are not trying to play semantics and yet you OBVIOUSLY tried to personally define a word (clean) and are now also defining 'natural' in a sense that is not aligned with what is most widely accepted.

And this is why you have two separate ideas, both still playing semantics.

Your second idea is ridiculous. I ridicule it because not only have you decided that you can define the word natural by your own terms, but apply it to everyone else; but also because it is completely reckless and foolish at best! The reason we have so many words is because there are definitions for each of them, which are widely accepted, and different words are produced to have DIFFERENT definitions. The words RAPE and INTERCOURSE are defined and accepted in terms that are distinct, and rightly so. And thus for the different purposes, the different words exist. In some insane way you've decided that you can personally define the word NATURAL by your own terms; those terms being "that whichever may arise from anything". I don't accept that, nor would most anyone else reading this conversation.

Let me guess here. In an even more ironic attempt to defend yourself, you will try to tell me you are still not using semantics by self-defining what you are doing.

Here's some help for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
-----

If ANY of what you said were a good idea, then why do you even remove your garbage from your home at all (I'm sure you do)? Let it build up, you claim it is natural and that nature will take its course. Practice what you preach. The sheer reality is that you KNOW it is a bad idea to keep the garbage around and that it is convenient to put it somewhere else as a way to maintain a healthy environment for yourself. The difference being that in regard to yourself, you have one set of ideas, but in regard to others, you have another.

Ironically Wrong and Selfish are words that define you. Its a shame that people will care about you, abstracting themselves from the concept of thinking the universe exists only through the eyes of the self; but that you are incapable of the same. In this you are a parasite to care and to the benefit that care produces.

Re:Surprise! Business model problems...

[bingoUV]

For example, let's say, for one issue, climate change, we define clean as, "less than 350ppm" .... Most C02 emissions are not man-made. ... it will continue to change in new ways.

You are measuring the effect (CO2 levels in atmosphere). But altering the quantity that you admit to be not a cause (man-made CO2). And expect your measure to change?

If you are bothered with man-made CO2, define clean to be something pertaining to man-made CO2. E.g. tonnes of CO2 per GW-year generated by power plants. Or, tonnes of man-made CO2 per million population per year. Or total number of tonnes of man-made CO2 per year.

So technology can only win if it counters the natural process

If you define clean as some CO2 level in atmosphere, to maintain clean, of course technology might have to do any of the following:
1. Introduce more CO2 into atmosphere to keep it clean; OR
2. Remove CO2 from atmosphere because natural sources have started belching CO2 like there was no tomorrow.
3. Release less/more CO2 by industrial processes

What is so surprising about it?

I propose a different definition of clean. Clean = natural.

Wow. Genius. Except that you forgot to define "natural". What use is this definition? Can you measure the cleanliness of anything with it? Or can you verify and prove to an impartial audience that something is clean with this defnition?

Thorium's Better But Also Harder To Work With

[Greg Hullender]

There's no question that Thorium has lots of advantages over Uranium, but it's much harder to make it work at all. Check out the list of disadvantages in the Wikipedia article "Thorium fuel cycle." It adds all kinds of engineering challenges that Uranium doesn't have.

Of course, if we're going to tackle the problems of the 21st Century, we have to be willing to solve hard engineering problems, but it makes perfect sense to tackle the easier ones first. Especially when it takes years to build and test a reactor, so developing anything really new is apt to take a decade or two before it can actually make money. So far, it has always seemed easier to tweak the existing, mature Uranium technology to deal with its remaining problems.

Personally, I'd love to see a sustained government effort to develop commercially viable Thorium power plants. (I have thought this since the 1970s.) But the reason that hasn't happened yet is Thorium just has too many unsolved problems -- it's not because of some industry conspiracy.

--Greg

Re:Thorium's Better But Also Harder To Work With

[Bigjeff5]

India seems to have come to the complete opposite conclusion with their thorium reactor.

It makes sense too, given that thorium requires no pre-processing and produces reactor-grade Uranium as its primary byproduct. By using the Uranium as well (which they have found difficult to import) they extend the life of the cores out to two years, which is practically unheard of.

Re:Thorium's Better But Also Harder To Work With

[Anonymous Coward]

India has a huge incentive to make Thorium work; they have colossal deposits of the stuff, but relatively little coal or uranium. Even so, despite decades of work, they haven't ever built anything bigger than a prototype. Their public information is always optimistic -- you'd think they right on the verge of commercializing thorium power. But that's what it looked like fifteen years ago too. I know there are some good reasons why they've had so much trouble with it, but the truth is, they haven't really made all that much progress.

Given the recent nuclear deals between India and the US, this may well change. One can only hope so.

--Greg

Re:Thorium's Better But Also Harder To Work With

[DrKnark]

It is correct that using a purely Thorium fuel cycle is hard, and requires alot more research. Closer to actually being implemented on a commercial scale is the closed fuel cycle, where spent fuel currently considered "waste" is used in fast breeder reactors.

Re:Thorium's Better But Also Harder To Work With

[Anonymous Coward]

I really, really, really hope that the plant workers for whatever technology are not trained using Wikipedia references. If that happens, we are all doomed.

Re:Thorium's Better But Also Harder To Work With

[RivenAleem]

But the reason that hasn't happened yet is Thorium just has too many unsolved problems -- it's not because of some industry conspiracy.

--Greg

There is also the Brotherhood to consider. They are not keen to hand over their precious Thorium, and the necessary flux to get it to react properly. They are never going to trust outsiders with it since Maltorius stole the secret plans.

nuclear fusion anyone?

[mephcpp]

how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion? Isn't it n times more efficient and m more clean?

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no reliable fusion power plant has ever been built? Nuclear fission, on the other hand, has been generating electricity for half a century. The real question is why the resources are being poured into fuel based technology, when renewable energy technology is becomming a serious alternative.

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[mudetroit]

While I won't disagree that I would like to see more money pushed at fusion, it is hard to say that it is more efficient when we haven't been able to build a plant that can be continuously energy positive yet. Fission reactors are more practical in the short term.

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[mudetroit]

There are tons of reasons why "fuel based technologies", which is really an odd statement as even most of renewable energy sources are fuel based on some level, primary among them is we still have a fairly large shortfall between the world energy demands and its energy producing capacity. A situation that will only get worse as we increase our capacity for creating energy ironically enough. It would be irresponsible to not work the problem from every angle possible. This means working on solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion, and even better fossil fuel facilities, for now. As well as on working on increasing our efficiency in consuming and delivering energy.

Neither side of the great energy debate wants to hear it, but we are decades away, at best, from a real solution to the problem. And attacking the solutions you don't like don't gain anyone a thing. If you think one solution is the best one then do what you can to support it. Technology wars are won by one side winning via whatever merits, not attacking opposing technologies.

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[Bazman]

Of course - and commercial electricity production from nuclear fusion is only 20 years away. Just as it was in 1960...

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[joocemann]

i think they've got 4 more miracles to achieve before it can show any real promise...

Val Kilmer isn't gonna save us on this one.

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[FooAtWFU]

how about pouring more resources in nuclear fusion? Isn't it n times more efficient and m more clean?

Yes! For present values of 'n' less than or equal to 0.

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[kewlblue]

Don't you mean Keanu Reeves? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_(film)

Re:nuclear fusion anyone?

[joocemann]

No I mean 'The Saint'

(Kilmer plays some kind of mercenary James Bond like character who helps a woman with nuclear fusion designs keep it open source)

Tubes?

[jhol13]

Tubes and "billiard balls" ... weren't 'em trucks?

P.S. I think "series of tubes" to be one of the best simplification of the 'net ever.

Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium

[ameline]

As the subject says, there is already a proven and safe reactor design that can use the thorium fuel cycle.

 

Re:Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium

[arthurpaliden]

That is one of the reasons India bought access to the technology.

Re:Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium

[HiddenCamper]

Candu reactors wont be allowed in the US because the NRC does not like open fuel loading and does not like reactors with positive reactivity coefficients. It's kind of sad, because we could take the used fuel from a US reactor and put it in a candu and run it for another couple years.

Re:Canadian CANDU reactors can use Thorium

[andy1307]

Thank god for the Canadians and their CAN-DU attitude.

nuclear waste, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

36 comments so far, and only one mentioning the #1 problem of current nuclear technology: WASTE.

The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it. Meanwhile, we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.

If switching to thorium stops the generation of highly radioactive waste, we have the #1 good reason for doing so.

Re:nuclear waste, anyone?

[jjohnson]

Reduced waste is one of the reasons for using Thorium: Not as much, and it decays to safe levels in decades, not centuries.

Re:nuclear waste, anyone?

[HiddenCamper]

Waste is an interesting topic that we do have ideas how to solve. The technology isnt there yet, but its also not going to be '20 years off forever' like cold fusion is. Transmuting long lasting waste products reduces a large amount of stockpile. Reprocessing allows us to generate less total waste and reuse fuel we currently have. Breeding will allow us to take parts of our fuel and use increase efficiency of a ton of uranium. Unfortunately we havent gotten there yet. Currently fuel is stored in casks for long term storage. It is a very good storage method for the intermediate period (100-300 years at least), and hopefully we will be able to reuse or burn off a lot of the waste products in that time.

Re:nuclear waste, anyone?

[dogmatixpsych]

If waste is a concern then reprocess the waste and use it again. Nuclear waste is only a problem because politics made it a problem.

Re:nuclear waste, anyone?

[GravityStar]

Sack up and reprocess the waste into fuel. Done.

Re:nuclear waste, anyone?

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is still unsolved but nobody cares about it. Meanwhile, we are cumulating tons of material which will be dangerously radioactive for many generations after ours.

1. Take a piece of paper.
2. Obtain the amount (volume) of nuclear waste produced world-wide per year; write it down.
3. Calculate the area required to store that waste.
4. Look up the combined area of uninhabited desert regions.
5. Realize that nuclear waste is, quite possibly, the last on the list of problems with current nuclear technology.
6. Build more nuclear plants, using any of the umpteen available safe designs in existence.
7. Profit!

Re:nuclear waste, anyone?

[ResidentSourcerer]

My limited understanding is that waste is a political + NIMBY problem, not a technology problem. Set the rods in a cooling pond for 5-10 years for the short lifespan radiation to exhaust itself, Melt the rest into glass, and cast as glass bricks. Dip coat the outside of the bricks in another quarter inch of non-radioactive glass to prevent surface leaching. Park in a dry rock formation. OR Drop the glass bricks in a deep subduction zone. We handle chemical materials that are far more toxic than radioactive materials on a routine basis. AND they don't have the courtesy to degrade. They are poisonous forever.

anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

The safety issue is one thing. Another important issue
is what to do about the waste products, which is short
lived for Thorium, compared to the long-lived products
from Uranium. There is a problem with Yucca mountain
overflowing with nuclear waste.

See also the Google Tech Talk by Kirk Sorensen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
(1 hour 22 minutes)

Fuel cells?

[forand]

Fuel cells may replace batteries but they do not generate electricity and are thus irrelevant to the current discussion. People keep thinking that the so called 'Hydrogen economy' is a solution of energy production. It is NOT. Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.

Re:Fuel cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.

Absolutely untrue, the other natural source is H2O. There are methods to seperate Hydrogen from water as shown in this simple experiment one can do at home. It is indeed true that there is a net LOSS of energy when using electricity to seperate hydrogen, and it is essentially true that it's main use is to store energy. There is a lower energy cost for methods which use fossil fuels, but they are far from the only ways to get pure hydrogen.

Re:Fuel cells?

[ConceptJunkie]

Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.

Too bad there's no hydrogen in the oceans... oh, wait...

Re:Fuel cells?

[Zironic]

And how do you get Hydrogen out of water? oooh, electricity? Who would have thought....

Re:Fuel cells?

[Rogerborg]

If I had point, I'd mod you back into the stone age. Then I'd make a time machine, travel back to the stone age, and bash your ape-man father's head in with a rock.

Re:Fuel cells?

[jheath314]

Oh yes, please tell me more about how you're going to burn the hydrogen from seawater to gain net energy when it is already in an oxidized state.

Learn basic chemistry before trying to contribute to chemistry-related topics.

Re:Fuel cells?

[JetTredmont]

Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.

Two corrections:

1. Hydrogen also exists in molecular form requiring extraction. Palladium membranes, if they ever become commercially feasible, can pull hydrogen out of atmospheric air with very little energy input. But, by and large, the only reliable way of getting hydrogen for mass fuel use is by electrolysis (splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen), which necessarily takes more energy than combining it back again (damned entropy!)

2. The natural sources of energy include coal, oil and gas reserves (tertiary sources), but also direct sources solar energy, wind, geothermal, and secondary sources - biofuels. Moving from tertiary to secondary or primary sources (wind is kinda a secondary source, but doesn't quite fit with the biofuels) reduces the impact of the use of the energy, increases the amount of energy available, and keeps us "within budget" because we can't use tomorrow's sunlight today (while we can obviously use all the oil in the earth).

Re:Fuel cells?

[ConceptJunkie]

Of course I know you need electrolysis to get the H2 out of H2O. I misunderstood the parent post. You need electricity to "generate" hydrogen and then went on to say that the only natural sources of hydrogen are petrochemicals. Clearly the latter sentence isn't true, as stated. What he _meant_ is that those are the only natural source of hydrogen _that doesn't require electricity to liberate_. I know plenty of basic chemistry.

Too safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Pseudo ecologists will never allow a nuclear design that is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly. After all, if such a design was implemented then they wouldn't have any arguments left against nuclear plants which would lead to more nuclear plants.

Thorium tubes

[delvsional]

So what happens when the thorium leaks out of small holes in the tubes from cracks or fme intrusion and pools in the bottom of the core? It can't melt down because it's already melted. This is why a meltdown is so bad, because you can't control how many bricks are in the pile.

Re:Thorium tubes

[AigariusDebian]

It will cool down and stop reacting as soon as it starts leaking, because of the lack of neutron bombardment. And such a failure is easy to detect even visually.

Re:Thorium tubes

[delvsional]

are you talking about visual detection inside of the core? What's the dose rate there? 50 REM/HR? also If it leaks into a puddle in the bottom of the Reactor Vessel the thorium will provide its own neutron bombardment.

Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[prefec2]

Such reactors may be less dangerous and the may produce less radioactive waste. But even though. They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle. And it uses still a extremely limited resource. We will eat up the reserves in no time. And it would be again a centralized energy production. We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely. And a large number of small generators are much less vulnerable to a total loss than one big one. Big technology is bad technology.
   

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[QuoteMstr]

We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely

Without realizing it, you've stuck upon the real psychological motivation behind the "decentralized everything" movement: it's political. It's a reflective reaction against the complexity of modern society, and against globalization.

Every honest intellectual person knows that sometimes centralization is desirable. Centralization is cheaper, more efficient, and often cleaner and safer as well. It's a lot cheaper for one building on campus to generate steam than for shack to have its own heater. It's easier to scrub the output of 100 coal plants than that of 10,000 automobiles.

Yet there are otherwise-intelligent people arguing for community-run, small, decentralized infrastructure even where it's batshit insane, like for nuclear power plants. This is not the product of honest reasoning, but an expression to live out the fantasy of living in a commune in the woods.

You want to stem the power of large corporations? I'm with you. Regulate them. But sometimes scaling up an operation is a no-brainer.

The attitude that small is always beautiful is the product of a small mind.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[OFnow]

We're not very good at handling the waste from coal either. Never stopped us from using it.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Don't you think that if decentralized small scale energy production was in any way profitable that it would be done? Are you even aware of the kind of efficiency boost many processes get when scaled up? There is no way you can even get near the efficiency of a big power plant. Only combined heat and power can do this in small scale and you have to have some way to put the heat in use (pretty darn complicated during summer...).

There is no small scale way to produce energy in an efficient way at a competitive price FULL STOP. If you know one consider yourself lucky for soon being the richest human being on this planet.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[Ozlanthos]

Unfortunately, those running the governments of this planet by and large believe in the axiom "Give me control over the air-supply of the planet and I could care less about what laws you write." They do not like "decentralized" sources of energy because then they can not extort the public for every last red cent for electricity. Between their own avarice and the greed of power companies, we will continue to live in a world where the sources that provide electricity are constantly under threat of attack, or lack of availability. Personally, I am awaiting the end of oil and /or coal with glee!.

-Oz

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[rantingkitten]

They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.

Where did you get the idea that we can't handle it, other than pointless fear-mongering from babbling political blowhards? The US has vast areas of desert where we've been test-detonating nuclear weapons for decades. Blast a huge hole miles deep out in the middle of nowhere, line it with concrete, and dump the waste. It's not going anywhere and even if it did, who cares, it's miles beneath the surface. And that's just off the top of my head.

Meanwhile, burning coal releases radiation as well, plus tons of smoke containing all kinds of vile pollutants, but we're happy to just release that freely to the atmosphere and not worry about it? It's this kind of idiotic thinking that got us where we are.

We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.

Did it occur to you that the economies of scale mean that centralising power generation and distribution is a lot more safe and efficient and cheap than each neighborhood having their own reactor or coal plant or whatever? Until we have Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactors that can be put in every basement or utility closet, it makes no sense to decentralise.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies

This goal can be achieved by creating an energy market where the generating companies are separate from the transmission companies. The customer can then choose the suitable method of production.

and to produce the energy more safely

The more generators, the more maintenance. Avoiding a single point of failure one creates multiple points of failure, with potentially substandard maintenance.

Big technology is bad technology.

Physics is sometimes the limiting factor. Just observe the size of the ITER test reactor.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[wardred]

If you're in a rural environment, setting up a decentralized energy production MAY make sense. Most of the US's population - I can't speak about the rest of the world as I don't know - is located in the highly developed coastlines and other metropolises where decentralized energy doesn't really make as much sense. These metropolises need a lot of energy all the time. Also, people mean different things when they talk about decentralized energy production. Some mean smaller energy companies, some mean self production. Self production for most of us isn't an option, either because of location restrictions or because of the high start up and potentially high maintenance costs. I'm also leery of millions of homes connected to the grid generating their own energy. Who maintains all the disparate systems? Heck, who makes sure they were all setup properly to begin with? Most people currently purchasing renewables for self production put a fair amount of research into them, but if there's some sort of mandate to get X% of people to self produce energy, i'm pretty sure we're going to run into a maintenance mess. Maybe not with the first home owner, but what about the second, or third?

Also, the efficiency of smaller plants is usually not the same as the efficiency for much larger plants. To be off grid requires batteries and the loss of energy when storing or retrieving the energy from the batteries. Wind turbines are a perfect example of larger is better. Larger swept area greatly increases the energy harvested from the wind. A much taller tower gets you higher wind speeds. The same can be said about any sort of fossil fuel based production. The individual units aren't as efficient. When talking of decentralized plants, a larger plant probably takes nearly the same amount of overhead, once it's built, than a smaller one, and there are fewer power lines to run.

Much as I hate to admit it, for many things large corporations actually make sense. They can build bigger, more efficient plants be it traditional fossil fuel plants, larger wind turbines, mass amounts of solar cells, nuclear plants, manufacturing, or what have you. They are not the be all, end all for everything. Many new technologies actually come from smaller companies, but it's hard to argue with the efficiencies of scale of larger companies once it's figured out how to produce whatever it is that they're making.

Also, for the green revolution it makes more sense to make your stationary energy production as efficient as possible, as opposed to trying to get cars totally off of fossil fuels. It doesn't have the energy density problems that autos have. I don't know if thorium is the answer, or breeder reactors, but either of these would work for the electric grid's base load and get us off of natural gas or coal to produce the same amount of energy. Most of our alternatives for base load, including renewables, have their own problems. Energy availability with wind and / or solar, as well as getting the production sites approved in the first place. Coal is exceptionally dirty, and fairly expensive to make cleaner. Natural gas is used a lot hear, but now you're back to fossil fuels. (I don't see getting rid of all of these plants as they run turbines that handle the spikes in the load.)

There is one thing most of us can do to help energy production and that's to ask for more energy efficient appliances, even if they cost a bit more. I think England has a 1 watt initiative - all consumer electronics must go to a 1 watt standby state. It's incredible the amount of energy that's wasted for our appliances when they're sitting there idle, and the technology isn't hard to implement. Heck, it should be easier to implement then the stupid DRM that most our products are forced to use. Further, we can ask that our PC and Console manufacturers make things so that the auto power management even while we're using them works properly. Most PCs sit there chewing up much more energy than they need, even when we're not playing the l

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are on drugs or brain damaged. You honestly believe that a large number of generators is actually an improvement over one large nuclear facility?

  You can't argue with that sort of stupid.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[fireylord]

thorium is not an extremely limited resource, and if you rtfa you'd note the fact that the hl wastes from this degrade way faster than uranium reactions.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[OrangeCatholic]

Who exactly is arguing for community-run nuclear power plants, anyway? People want fuel cells, solar and wind so they can get off the grid, and get over the guilt of contributing to the pollution problem. Distributed power generation is potentially the biggest game changer since gasoline (which, ultimately, was also a massively distributed power generation scheme - see the automobile). Gasoline enabled the suburbs and the settlement of vast interiors of the US.

Distributed electricity generation will probably result in another renaissance of rural development, and ultimately the telecommuting society that was envisioned 10-15 years ago.

Oh, and a "commune in the woods" is also known as a "town." I'm pretty sure that before this plot of land had a desk and a computer, it was full of, you know, trees.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

We want a decentralized energy production to become independent from big energy companies and to produce the energy more safely.

Sounds nice on paper. The bottom line is that it doest work. We use too much power, with physics of scale, you can't compete with mass produced power. I will get my power cheaper than you by not doing that.

Next is the problem of generating power from what? Gas? Coal? Solar? wind? This won't work without some serious power storage and some serious over generation to "secure supply". Just ask some people who live far away from the grid.

Finally your facts about nuclear are not very accurate. Once through cycles that the US is obsessed with is not the norm and incredibly wasteful (seems to be the American way). The reactor stated here fixes many of these problems to very manageable levels. For example pressure water reactors get a burn up of fuel in the 20% range (Optimistically). Molten salt(with any fuel) gets 100%. Molten salt can even run on PWR waste nicely, and reduce the amount of long term waste by a factor of 10. Using Th is better since U233 tends to produce nicer waste, and will be reasonably safe in about 100 years, and there is much much less of it. There is more than enough U and Th to last 1000s years if we breed and reprocess.

In fact a 1GW power station could hold 100 years of waste in a reasonably small area that can be co located . After that the stuff that went in first can be taken out. This avoids transportation issues.

Finally there are many things that we deal with routinely that are just as bad in industry. DDTs don't ever become safe. Ever. Yes we should have a waste solution as part of moving back to nuclear, but its not the boogie man. And we should burn most of the waste we have rather than bury it. Finally we must realistically asses the costs (environmental and financial) of the different options. Even the most extreme greenies are are not using less energy and it needs to come from somewhere.

Oh an interesting side note. Molten salt reactors are easily scaled down and up. So small "community" based power stations are theoretically possible.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[MobyDisk]

They still produce radioactive waste, which we cannot handle.

Why not? Most of the world handles the waste by storing it in water tanks until it is safe to bury. If you are afraid of burying it remember: the fuel came from the ground. And it is better than the place we put the radioactive by-products of coal burning - we dump that into the atmosphere.

And it uses still a extremely limited resource. We will eat up the reserves in no time.

If you read through the comments, they point out that we actually are not running out of uranium, and thorium is even more plentiful. And we have nuclear reactors that are 50 times more efficient than our old ones due to fuel recycling. So... no end in sight. Plus: we obviously have limited supplies of coal.

We want a decentralized energy production

That will be nice when it happens. I think that will come with things like solar and wind. But for now they aren't enough.

Re:Why not build a "not that bad"-technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot cheaper for one building on campus to generate steam than for shack to have its own heater.

You really picked a bad example here, I'm afraid. Anything that involves generating heat locally by burning fuel is going to be 100% efficient, no matter where it is located, because there is no such thing as waste heat in this context. But as soon as you burn the fuel remotely and send the heat down pipes, you're losing power.

Capital costs may be slightly higher for the decentralized approach, but in fact they are likely to be lower, due to the economies of scale coming from mass production (a centralized system which actually does work).

Most systems in fact need to be partially centralized and partially decentralized, as power production is (you note that each country has its own power stations). You are talking about a dichotomy where really the disagreement is over the *level* of decentralization.

This has nothing to do with "honesty" although I like how you bring that up to try to claim some moral high ground for your opinion. How honest is that, exactly?

Molten Fluoride Salts?

[eagle52997]

"So why are we not building these reactors?" Yeah, cause its always a good idea to work with large quantities of molten fluoride salts. I think I've got some materials right here in my shop that would work perfectly fine with that.

Re:Molten Fluoride Salts?

[HiddenCamper]

Look at the Monju plant in japan, they had a minor leak that just destroyed a room. The accident was also covered up for a week. No injuries though, but the plant was offline for years.

Why?

[arthurpaliden]

Because 'Big-Uranium' bought up all the patents and made them secret. ...... Just like 'Big-Oil" bought up the super-dooper battery patents.

Japan went to war for want of oil...

[Anonymous Coward]

"[Iran's] oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly"

Didn't Japan go to war after being denied access to importable Oil?

Perhaps we risk forcing Iran to use any weapons they can muster, ie,
if they find themselves short of oil & unable to develop alternatives
acceptable to their [Bush-declared "agents of evil"] enemies.

Not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[HiddenCamper]

The article seems a little misleading. The article makes it appear that just by using thorium, it is possible to get better fuel efficiency (burnup). The reality is that the article is talking about using liquid fluoride based reactors, a technology that we havent been able to make commercial use of yet, and it is unlikely we will see those types of reactors for many years. Comparing liquid fluoride reactors to any type of light water reactor (the kind in use in the US) is like comparing the gas mileage for a car to an airplane. They use different fuel types due to design, and you wouldnt buy a hummer just because the car salesman says it gets better gas mileage than an airplane. The article should talk about the difference between LWRs and gen4 reactors, and how by using a gen4 reactor you can make efficient use of thorium, expanding our fuel options and reducing proliferation threats. When thorium fuel is used in an LWR, you actually get much worse fuel economy (about 5% to 10% at best compared to traditional uranium cycles), for the same cost. Wikipedia's thorium fuel cycle has some pretty good information about thorium in LWRs. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf is a great document prepared for the IAEA and has some good bullet points about thorium viability.

Re:Not wrong, but somewhat misleading

[AigariusDebian]

And Uranium cann't even work a liquid fluoride reactor just like a Prius would have a horrible mileage on kerosine, so what's your point?

Why use a superior fuel in an inferior engine that was not intended for it by design? If you really want apples-to-apples comparison, then you need to compare best Uranium reactor designs to best Thorium reactor designs.

CANDU

[johnkennethhunter]

I've often read that a CANDU reactor is already designed for use of Thorium as a fuel, but compared to claims in this article, would prove to be an expensive way to burn this fuel. Of course, a CANDU reactor can burn up old warheads and even the waste a PWR leaves behind, so I have my doubts any of the 7 countries using that reactor would need to switch to a Thorium cycle. By then, perhaps even more ingenious ways to extract power from Thorium may be discovered.

Check Google Tech Talks / YouTube for more info

[haruchai]

There are several hour-long talks on the history and potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel. Very interesting stuff.
I've long been opposed to relying on nuclear power but after looking at the info on Thorium, I'm starting to have
second thoughts.
Whether or not it pans out, I'm afraid that nothing short of a catastrophe of some kind will lead to its adoption.
It's very hard to unseat the entrenched industries, especially in North America, so coal and uranium won't
suddenly disappear.

why bother

[cinnamon colbert]

Nuclear power is a really bad idea for two reasons 1) all the energy we need can come from solar and wind Thorium may be "inherently safe" but having tons of super hot, possibly corrosive and toxic (HF, hydrofluoric acid is super corrosive and toxic) fluoride salts doesn't really sound like a good place to start. so, if you had the control of how to spend, say,10 billion dollars (and that is probably a minimum to bring a new reactor technology on line) to develop new nukes, or better solar panels, which way would you go ? 2) it helps spread nuclear weapons technology there is also an issue about nuclear weapons. Building the complex infrastructure to manufacture, test an store nuculear weapons requires a huge amount of expertise in how to handle radioactive materials. I think it obvious that it is easier to aquire this expertise if ou have a civilian nuclear power industry. Say for just storing vry radioactive waste - you need to know how to monitor it so workers are safe, you need special shielded drums, etc ect Civilian nuclear power = more nuclear weapons

Re:why bother

[fnj]

You do realize that some of us know that you just saying "all the energy we need can come from solar and wind" doesn't make it true, right?

Re:why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

are u agreeing or dis agreeing ?

Re:why bother

[DamonHD]

I'm hugely in favour of solar and wind power, but evidently you need to understand "intermittency" and "storage" a little better. Like what keeps the lights on after 5 cold still cloudy mid-winter days...

Rgds

Damon

Re:why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

well, i was to lazy to put all that in..my original question remains: you have 10 or 20 or 40 billion dollars to spend, what makes more sense ? I know storage is a tough issue; I know solar panels and wind turbines get covered with insects, which are hard t clean and reduce efficiency, etc etc etc
going back to the big picture - solar/wind better then something that spreads the technology needed for nuclear weapons ?

Re:why bother

[shutdown -p now]

all the energy we need can come from solar and wind

Are you one of those "back to trees and caves" Greenpeace guys? Do you, perhaps, think that Earth could use a few billion less humans, and in short order?

'cause that's about the only scenario in which we can realistically need no more energy than what can be covered by wind/solar, worldwide. Now, some regions can get away with wind and/or solar alone, some regions can also get away with hydro, or geothermal and tidal - but as a generic solution, it doesn't cut it.

Waste is the real problem of nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

And not just the core material. Do you know how much radioactive building must be disposed of when a nuclear plant is decommissioned?

Here's an NRC site detailing the time it takes to decommission a power plant (decades!):

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html

Nuclear has many advantages, but the waste treatment plan must be fool-proof if we are to use this safely.

Re:Waste is the real problem of nuclear

[QuoteMstr]

Decommissioning any industrial site is a nightmare. Nuclear power isn't special in that respect. Perhaps we should just be more reluctant to close these facilities.

Bethlehem Steel in Buffalo, NY shut down in the 1970s. Here is what it looks like today. 40 years later, and it's still a barren wasteland.

No nuclear power involved there.

India's thorium reactors.

[Colin Smith]

India has Thorium reactors today.

Really? Can you show me a photo of a commercially operating (today) Thorium reactor?

There are certainly designs and plans and prototypes and test reactors.
 

Re:India's thorium reactors.

[Anonymous Coward]

No photos, but you can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium and its references for the proof.

Wired Article Errors and Omissions

[careysub]

The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors. A key fact about thorium reactors mentioned no where in the article: you can't build a reactor, load it with thorium alone, and have it work. It will sit there producing no power forever. This because thorium is only the breeding material and is not fissile. To get the reactor to produce power the thorium has to be mixed with plutonium or U-233 bred in some uranium fueled reactor somewhere, or with highly enriched U-235. In other words - the reactor has to be loaded with bomb-usable material and there has to be a lot of it, enough for hundreds of weapons.

This is part of why the whole quasi-conspiratorial story of "why we didn't go with thorium in the first place" is utter nonsense. It was not because "we wanted bombs instead" and were prejudiced against "superior thorium", it is because only if you have an established nuclear industry cranking out materials usable in bombs by the thousands can you build these reactors in the first place. Either you must have natural/low enriched uranium reactors to produce plutonium, or you need large amounts of highly enriched uranium (prime bomb material) to load into thorium breeders.

Also unacknowledged is that the particular type of reactor being promoted, the molten fluoride salt reactor, was and is a complex technology that requires substantial additional development. Only one single reactor of this kind was ever built, and it was an 8 megawatt (thermal) materials test reactor, not a power reactor. We are looking at many years of additional development before construction can start on a prototype full scale power reactor. I agree that this technology should be further pursued, and it may turn out more successful that plutonium breeders (no successful power plants have been built, just several failures) but it is by no means guaranteed.

Hyman Rickover, by the way, was interested in light water uranium fueled reactors because they are a good technology for powering submarines, not because they produce plutonium (they are lousy plutonium producers, the yield is low and the material produced has terrible properties for bombs).

Check out the 2005 IAEA survey document (http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/IAEA-TECDOC-1450.pdf) for a good summary of the thorium technology options and prospects.

Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions

[AigariusDebian]

Well, just load it up with some waste from the current reactors. Poison it with U-238 so that it is too noisy to use in any nuclear weapon and off you go, it is self-sustainable from that point and does not need any more Uranium.

Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wired Magazine article presents a false picture of the development of nuclear power and leaves out some crucial facts about thorium reactors.

I was just about to whip off with a really smartass "why should we believe you on Slashdot" comment, then I realized who you are.

Thanks for the information Mr. Sublette. I had just read the Wired article, and like many I took it at face value since I didn't have time to research the issue nor the background in physics.

Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions

[Anonymous Coward]

ISTR that a team led by Carlo Rubbia was looking into the prospect of developing accelerator-driven thorium reactoes - no other fissiles required...

Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions

[hughperkins]

Actually you can start the process with any fast neutron source, including a particle accelerator. You don't need blocks of plutonium lying around.

Re:Wired Article Errors and Omissions

[CrazyChinaman]

That's what I thought (Th being fertile) I couldn't remember for sure, but didn't have time to go look it up yet. I can't believe they left out that cruicial tidbit :/

India and thorium

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet, despite all you say, the supposedly incorruptible Manmohan Singh [*] bent over backward to do a deal with the US that is -- in the long term -- clearly very bad for India if you consider energy independence combined with foreign policy independence. He's accepted an unprecedented level of interference from the US... oops I mean "inspections", we're now committed to buying hundreds (thousands?) of billions of USD worth of equipment from the US (most of the drooling over this deal was from US companies in that line, naturally), and there's no mention of Thorium anywhere on the horizon as far as these bozos are concerned.

[*] to be fair, I think he's still incorruptible; it's just that fornicating Italian female canine has such an influence over him... What bothers me is that President Kalam, who had been talking up Thorium for years (IIRC) and criticising the nuclear deal (albeit gently, considering his status), suddenly veered around and said yeah this is good for India. Now *that* is an achievement. I do believe Indira Gandhi herself could not have budged this man from saying what he believes, so how the fIfc {see above} managed that is beyond me...

Win/win

[Anonymous Coward]

that's great, and worth it even if thorium is slightly inferior as a fuel.
 
They mention that Thorium is "extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel" and "doesn't require costly processing", so it seems to be both cheaper and better. It truly seems like a win/win situation.

No US commercial reactor with thorium I found

[mrflash818]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

Seems there are zero commercial thorium-only reactors in the United States.

So, now I am wondering if the idea sounds great on paper, but is unable to be made a commercial reality.

Seem that if it was so easy to do, someone would have done it by now, as generating electricity for a utility seems a win-win in terms of profit.

Re:No US commercial reactor with thorium I found

[AigariusDebian]

The current US nuclear companies make more money from refining Uranium than from generating electricity, so they are not interested in such newfangled designs that cut into their profit margins.

Re:No US commercial reactor with thorium I found

[Dr. Spork]

Yeah, which brings up another important point: The Thorium does not need to be enriched - you just throw natural Thorium into the reactor and it works. This means fewer dual-use enrichment plants (the kind we want to bomb in Iran) so a much lower proliferation risk. But also: Much lower fuel cycle costs.

Re:No US commercial reactor with thorium I found

[shutdown -p now]

There's no surprise here, as U.S. had fallen behind nuclear power tech quite a bit lately. The most recent nuclear reactor brought online in U.S. was Watts Bar, in 1996 - its construction started in 1973. If you go by date on which construction began, the most recent one is River Bend, 1977. In other words, the most up-to-date commercial reactor in U.S. was built according to the plans drawn up over 30 years ago.

Thorium is the future...

[kaarigar]

Apparently all the manufacturers of nuclear technologies and plans are non-thorium based - they have interest in their promoting their business. Thorium based reactors are definitely the future - India has been active in this area since a very very long time and has reportedly made quite a substantial inroads into its use and application. It is mainly motivated by the fact that it has to rely on the nuclear raw material from those few who would not sell it easily - a lot of diplomatic and political arm-twisting, conditions and business favors. The real reason US and other western nuclear powers want India to sign NTPT and CTBT by offering it nuclear fuel (for non-thorium based reactors) is also to make it agree to sign for access to its nuclear facility for overseeing its usage and security by the "watchdog" agencies and also to roll back and terminate its research reactors (which are instrumental in thorium research), and thereby either kill its research and/or gain access to it.

We don't have the reactors due to B.A.N.A.N.A.

[Anonymous Coward]

B.A.N.A.N.A. - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

Unfortunately there is a lack of new atomic reactors, refineries, wind turbines, solar farms, and anything else to do with the production of power, because any time you want to build one, you get sued.

Greenpeace and all the other anti-human population nutjobs will for and try to kill your plant in the planning stages, long before you've got a permit. Then assuming you can buy off enough local and state politicians to get through the first few planning stages, you'll immediately get sued again. This time it be on the legal grounds of "Think Of The Children" and involve showing how you're attempting to poison babies everywhere within 50 or 100 miles. The fact that even a full blown Chernobyl is safe at 100 miles away is not going to deter this group. Rationality, public need, all gone. Many of these groups DO NOT want a solution to the energy problem. They see it as a population problem, to be corrected by energy shortages. They see it as a 'do with having less' problem, to be solved by getting back into graces of some imaginary "Mother Earth."

The obvious answer...

[jkiller]

Are we forgetting Tylium? Easily mine-able and can spool your FTL drive. Endless benefits.

No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[Ihlosi]

Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule. You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches.

The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first place, e.g. like in a fusion reactor, or using the neutrons from a fusion reactor to split fission fuel. No chain reaction, so just stop the neutron source and you only have decay heat to deal with.

Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[fireylord]

Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule. You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches.

i think you need to reread the article and some of the posts again. Decent design of failsafes requires no switch flipping, and cannot be overridden by a switch

Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[shutdown -p now]

Anytime there's a chain reaction, there's a chance for it becoming uncontrolled, however miniscule. You just need to find the right idiot to flip the wrong switches. The only way to have no chance of an uncontrolled chain reaction is not having a chain reaction in the first place

Have you ever heard of that ground-breaking engineering concept called "negative feedback loop"?

Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[Ihlosi]

i think you need to reread the article and some of the posts again. Decent design of failsafes requires no switch flipping, and cannot be overridden by a switch That was a figure of speech. Instead of flipping a switch, it could be a small design error, a bunch of flaws that each by itself would be harmless, or someone _trying_ really hard out of either sheer stupidity or even malice.

Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[Ihlosi]

Have you ever heard of that ground-breaking engineering concept called "negative feedback loop"?

Durr, yeah. I have a degree in engineering cybernetics. Good enough for you?

However, in a self-sustaining chain reaction, the feedback loop must only be negative for certain operating conditions, or you won't get a self-sustaining chain reaction in the first place. You'll need positive feedback for starting the reactor, for example, and as soon as you have positive feedback loops anywhere, you're basically playing with fire. If you break that nice negative feedback loop that keeps your reactor from behaving nicely in any way (that could be the aforementioned idiot, bugs in the controlling software, simple mechanical problems, small design flaws, or, as in most previous cases, a wild combination of seemingly harmless flaws and errors), you're going to get the next TMI (not the next Chernobyl, as long as you don't fill the reactor with highly flammable materials).

Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you could design away the possibility of positive feedback in power output, doesn't mean you can design away risk.
There will always be significant risk involved in nuclear technologies of any stripe due to the high energy density of nuclear fuels and isotopes. There is no chain reaction involved in a doctor accidentally administering too much Cobalt-60 to your eye.

"Safe" is a relative term.

Re:No chance of meltdown? Don't believe it.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

There are no switches for the idiot to flip. The fuel is already *melted*. If you have a fusion reactor, why the hell would i want energy from fission at all?

Yes there could be a *fault*. But you can design it so that all physically possible faults result in no leaks to the outside world (as 3 mile island did). You can even design then so that all conceivable faults are easily dealt with after the fact and easy to clean up.

'heat'?

[FatSean]

What 'heat' other than strongly worded letters did the State of Isreal take in response to their Gaza attacks?

They're not even part of the Non-proliferation treaty. Your assertations need citations.

Why do people think nuclear energy is safe?

[quakemeister]

It is NOT safe. It may be *safer* than some other choices (radiation release from fossil fuels is substantially higher than nuclear powered generators), but it is a stretch to call a technology that produces deadly by-products that last in some cases millions of years (plutonium) "safe".

The DOE funds research into nuclear in the BILLIONS, versus *even safer* energy tech like wind and solar. In fact, the DOE budget for clean renewable energy was in the millions while nuclear was in the billions. Why is this? Perhaps because of that nasty other side of nuclear - weapons.

Nuclear ran by a stable governmental agency *might* be capable of limiting and controlling weapons tech for itself and leaking to another country - I don't think this has happened yet. How safe can nuclear really be (Chernobyl and 3 mile aside) if by definition it helps other groups develop nuclear weapons?

Meanwhile, wind and solar are really on the cusp of being marketable *right now*. No nasty weapons tech by-product. No more waste disposal problem, etc. Just shift a few $bil to where we should be putting it and we are there.

But...

[malign]

thorium? are we not on to saronite yet?

infrastructure

[confused one]

Primary reason there is limited interest in thorium, right now. Infrastructure. Ore processing, refining, isotope separation, fuel rod manufacturing infrastructure. Most existing fission reactors rely on an U 235 / U238/ Pu 239 fuel. Industrial scale processing in the countries that process fuel is all set up for uranium and plutonium processing. It would cost 10's of billions of dollars / euro / rubles / yen / yuan / or what have you, to build the necessary facilities.

Evaporating?

[fireylord]

they do not want their power base to evaporate

Metaphorically, or indeed actually :D

Nuclear stigma?

[govt-serpent]

I say let's call it Metal Power Plants instead.

Not As Much Room For Corruption

[b4upoo]

A lot of big players must really enjoy the contracts for building complex nuclear reactors. Make them better and simpler and these middlemen will not make as much money. You can bet that your local power company and the entire coal industry would be willing to kill anyone coming up with small, safe, efficient modes of power production or delivery.
                      If you think that paragraph is paranoia at work consider how many people the coal industry has been known to murder in the past. Time does not change greedy people.

Not everyone:

[DrKnark]

Everyone that has nuclear reactors does not build bombs. 50% of Sweden's electricity comes from reactors, and Sweden has never built a single nuclear bomb.

These reactors are not being built because the technology is not fully developed (as I understand it, better materials are required because of the high temperatures). Though some prototypes has been built.

On this subject it can also be worth of mention that all Gen-IV reactor concepts (which include molten salt reactors) are designed to make it very hard if not impossible to extract Pu-239 from their fuel or waste.

You are correct on the subject of Iran, they want to build a reactor based on a Gen-IV concept (i forget which one right now) but modified to facilitate production of Pu-239. That design is not accepted as a Gen-IV reactor.

Generation IV Wikipedia article

Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[tjstork]

Posting anonymously because it's bull. 200 years to peak oil there? Maybe if they don't sell any.

This isn't flamebait at all. None other than Dick Cheney was running around telling everyone who would listen that there was a huge production problem in the middle east. He had a great quote to sum it, something like, "If the Saudi's have so much more oil, they would have to be finding other fields like Gawar, and they haven't been". In fact, he calculated out how many Gawar size mega fields anybody would have to find, simply to meet existing demand, and they aren't out there.

Suddenly we find the USA sitting in Iraq, for what reason? The whole Bush administration's energy policy was essentially to get the dibs on the last remaining oil taps in the world, its own coastlines, interior, and in Iraq, essentially to buy time for its other plan of shoveling money at alternative energy projects would kick in.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[c6gunner]

Ah, yes, the old "war for oil" idiocy again. Only in the mind of a blithering moron would it make more sense to spend trillions invading a foreign nation instead of investing a few billion in the development of domestic oil-sand and oil-shale extraction techniques.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Just Another Perl Ha]

Strangely enough... your statement seems to prove the "war for oil" argument rather than to disprove it... given the men who executed the plan.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[sentientbeing]

You dont seriously believe we spent billions invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East?

Go and watch The History of Oil - Robert Newman. Its both hilarious and informative.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159#

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Artifakt]

You do realize that saying only blithering idiots would do it (while true) doesn't mean it didn't happen?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[tjstork]

Ah, yes, the old "war for oil" idiocy again. Only in the mind of a blithering moron would it make more sense to spend trillions invading a foreign nation instead

It's not just about getting oil for ourselves, its being able to control it for everyone else. It's also about using up someone else's oil before taking desperation measures for our own.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[tjstork]

Ah, yes, the old "war for oil" idiocy again. Only in the mind of a blithering moron would it make more sense to spend trillions invading a foreign nation instead

I think the expectation was that everyone was surprised about the apparent "ease" of Afghanistan, and assumed that it would translate to Iraq, or, given the experience of the administration, any number of 1980's and 1990's operations, like Panama, or Grenada, come to mind. Like, I think they genuinely believed that Iraq would be pretty easy in the mold of other operations pulled off by Republicans - topple the dictator, put in our guy, and go forth, but the problem was that in Iraq, there was no "our guy".

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[JetTredmont]

Suddenly we find the USA sitting in Iraq, for what reason? The whole Bush administration's energy policy was essentially to get the dibs on the last remaining oil taps in the world, its own coastlines, interior, and in Iraq, essentially to buy time for its other plan of shoveling money at alternative energy projects would kick in.

Okay, so who forgot to flip the switch on the alternative-energy projects money-shovel? Or was that going to happen in Bush's third term?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[JetTredmont]

Ah, yes, the old "war for oil" idiocy again. Only in the mind of a blithering moron would it make more sense to spend trillions invading a foreign nation instead of investing a few billion in the development of domestic oil-sand and oil-shale extraction techniques.

I'm not sure if you're calling the OP a blithering moron for thinking Bush/Cheney Inc would do this, or if you're calling Bush a moron for doing it. One of the two is indubitably true.

(The likelihood of oil-shale extraction techniques to work is beside the point; we certainly could have been spending a whole lot more money on alternate fuels in the past decade than we did.)

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[quanticle]

Well, if we didn't invade Iraq for its oil, what, exactly, did we invade it for? I mean, if you scoff at the "war for oil", argument, surely you'll scoff at the "they had Weapons of Mass Destruction", argument, which is even more patently false than the first one.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[c6gunner]

It's not just about getting oil for ourselves, its being able to control it for everyone else. It's also about using up someone else's oil before taking desperation measures for our own.

Ah, yes, invading other nations "to take their oil" isn't a "desperation measure", but investing in domestic industry is. What world are you living in?

I think the expectation was that everyone was surprised about the apparent "ease" of Afghanistan, and assumed that it would translate to Iraq

Nobody with any understanding of the situation was at all surprised about the ease with which the US took Afghanistan. We were a bit surprised by how quickly Iraq folded, though, and were quite surprised that they didn't use any gas or chemical warfare.

That's all irrelevant, though. By the time of the Iraq invasion, the US had already been involved in the Afghanistan effort for almost 2 years. Therefore the people planning the invasion - even if they were completely incompetent - would have had to know that their military commitment to Iraq would be 2 years at a minimum. Given the projected figures for Afghanistan at that point, they would more likely have been planning for a 6+ year effort, although they would have underestimated the force levels required. Therefore it would still have been MUCH cheaper to invest in domestic industry, instead of going overseas to steal other peoples resources. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

If you think that first world nations fight wars over resources, then you really don't understand globalization. We fight over ideology, we fight to project power, and we fight to maintain our dominance and increase our security. If we want resources, we fucking buy them because it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Of course, some countries that we're interested in will also happen to have natural resources. In such cases it makes sense to try and secure some of those for our own use. However, that doesn't mean that the natural resources were the reason for the invasion - they may simply turn out to be a fringe benefit.

I say "may be" because, if you look at the Oil deals that Iraq has been making, you'll notice that the US is getting the short end of the stick.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[lasinge]

So what really is the worth of an ideology if it's not to convince the people of a nation of some sort of exceptionalism to invade another country to control resources? Wars over ideology? I can't buy it. Now to say that we invaded Iraq because we wanted their oil is an oversimplification, it's that Hussein was trying to convert the way of trading oil to be dollar based into being euro based - which in my amateur armchair economist way I can only imagine that it would have some sort of impact on the worth of our currency - it only stands to reason. That IMHO is why we invaded Iraq, well that and the people making that decision were all in the oil business, so they knew what to do with the stuff and knew how to personally profit from oil AND defense contracts. Ideology? Really? You think the army has some document that quantifies the value of that somewhere? Wait a minute - is that you Mr. Cheney?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[lasinge]

Every oil company has a "division" of alternative energy and they do a lot of buying up of patents of green energy. I know someone who visited one of the said departments and there was reportedly several unopened boxes of expensive testing equipment gathering dust and two guys just sitting around doing nothing in one small room. Additionally, I once knew another guy who worked in an alternative energy department of an oil company (we worked together in another part time endeavor - non technical) and he had plenty of free time. Also his emails were nothing like any engineer I've ever known, they rambled on and made hardly any sense. I got the distinct feeling that he was a placeholder.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Vancorps]

While I do think that the war in Iraq was about oil I see it as a poor investment given that we've spent a trillion dollars there and rebuilding is likely to cost a lot more. I don't see any return on that investment which is on top of the thousands of lives lost on all sides. The whole situation is rather sad.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[dbIII]

It really wasn't about the USA getting hold of it, it would have been a lot cheaper to just get it from whoever was selling no matter what they charge. It was about organisations associated with Mr Cheney getting hold of it, and also a lot of taxpayers money via war profiteering.
There are a lot of energy sources but oil that is easy to extract is not in infinite supply. Everything else costs more which simply means that when oil production declines just about everything sold is going to cost more and some things will become uneconomic.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[tjstork]

Ah, yes, invading other nations "to take their oil" isn't a "desperation measure", but investing in domestic industry is. What world are you living in?

The world where it was politically easier to build a massive oil infrastructure in the middle of a desert than it is to plow up thousands of acres of pristine wilderness in some of America's heartland. There may be mountains of shale oil under Colorado, but the mess would be extravagant.

And, the thing is, too, is that there are absolutely no guarantees that we can come up with an alternative energy system simply by throwing money on it. Could you ask any scientist to have an ETA on any discovery? Doubtful. Invading a country may be evil and whatever, but on some level it is a safer and more realistic bet than dumping money on research. After all, if money were the only obstacle, we would have cured cancer and have nuclear fusion by now, and we do not.

Therefore it would still have been MUCH cheaper to invest in domestic industry, instead of going overseas to steal other peoples resources. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

You can't say that. Seriously. I mean, if it were only a trillion dollars to do national energy independence, why wouldn't have the other party just gone and made that bet? The fact is, money can help science but it cannot guarantee invention and invention is what this country, no, this world, needs. And look at where we are now, we're a year into the Obama administration and the biodiesel industry has essentially been destroyed. Mind you, its not Obama's fault, but, if you were going to be blowing money on the stimulus package. Nova Biosource Fuels, one of the bigger producers that I had stock in, is in liquidation and some of its 180 million gallon capacity is for parts on e-bay at one point.

If you think that first world nations fight wars over resources, then you really don't understand globalization. We fight over ideology, we fight to project power, and we fight to maintain our dominance and increase our security

I'm a lot more cynical than you. Having gone from thoroughly and idealistically supporting President Bush and Pax Americana and the idea of spreading liberty by overthrowing dictators, to see how well that didn't turn out, I wonder if the whole projection of power hasn't always been a sort of an empire. What threat or purpose or overarching national interest, really, do we still have troops in Germany, Japan or Korea. All of those wars have been either over or quiet now for longer than most of us have been alive. Suddenly the isolationism of the pre-1940s Republican Party seems a lot more appealing to me. The world doesn't want to be policed, saved, or defended, so why do it? As we prepare to push Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial in New York, I have to ask, if we had put Goering on trial under US laws, could he have conceivably walked, or maybe Nuremberg was just a big show trial too. I mean, we can bitch as much as we want about Babi Yar and the terrible Nazis shooting up a bunch of civilians and shoving them into a ditch. But then again, we firebombed the shit out of them and then they shoved the burned up corpses into a ditch. That's not to say that Nazis were somehow on the same moral plane as us, but it is to say that even if you fight a war to save the world, the very act of doing so corrupts your national character. I wonder if the best course for the national soul of America, to recapture its innocence, is to simply not have bases and troops all around the world and to not have any more wars. After all, regardless of all the "its a smaller world hype", its still a pretty damned long swim from Europe to the USA, or from China to the USA, and missile defense is becoming a reality. We don't need to be all over the world any more.

I say "may be" because, if you look at the Oil deals that Iraq has been making, you'll notice that the US is getting the short end of the stick.

Not really. Regardless of who gets to pump the oil out of Ir

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I say "may be" because, if you look at the Oil deals that Iraq has been making, you'll notice that the US is getting the short end of the stick.

Gee. Maybe the next time we elect an oil man as POTUS, we'll elect one that's not a failed oil man.

Literally everything Bush has ever touched has turned to shit. It's a testimony to the greatness of the US that we survived him.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[ChrisMaple]

At the time, we had some reason to believe that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Iraq was deliberately and obviously preventing the inspections that they had agreed to in their surrender in the Kuwait war. All Iraq had to do to prevent the new war was allow inspections. I even remember hearing claims that some Iraqi scientists were feeding Hussein stories that they were developing nuclear weapons, even when they weren't. They feared for their lives if they didn't tell him they were developing weapons. So even the Iraqis didn't know if they were making nukes, yet people call the US liars for using nukes as a reason for attacking. Also remember that there was a period of many months during which the US was massing troops to invade Iraq. Nobody who was paying attention doubted we were going to do it. Iraq could have buried or shipped out of the country anything they wanted to hide in maybe two days, and they had MONTHS to do it.

Was it the right choice? Would we be better off now if Hussein and his tribe were still in power? Could we have done something else to displace Hussein or make him impotent? Beats me.

Oil was a consideration. A dangerous dictatorship was another consideration. Perform for yourself this thought experiment: would we attack Canada if Canada declared it would no longer export oil to the US? How long would the US president remain in office if he tried a fool stunt like that? That should answer the claim that it's all about oil.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[dave87656]

Only in the mind of a blithering moron would it make more sense to spend trillions invading a foreign nation instead of investing a few billion in the development of domestic oil-sand and oil-shale extraction techniques.

Exactly. You do remember who was president at the time, right?

Although, I would suggest that better alternatives than oil-sand and oil shale exist. It takes ~3/4 of the energy produced to extract oil out of sand and shale. The US has tremendous solar potential in the Southwest. Of course, Solar can't be the only source for obvious reasons, but it can contribute alot to the electric grid.

And, I read recently that gas supplies have become very reliable in the US and would suffice for another 100 or so years at current growth with the advantage that it burns cleaner than oil and much cleaner than coal.

Of course, the biggest reserves are in coal. Who knows ... maybe we'll find a way to generate clean(er) energy from it.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[dave87656]

You dont seriously believe we spent billions invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Middle East?

Especially since the other countries who are our "friends" in the region aren't exactly democracies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc). Of course, when they are our friends, we call them Monarchies and when they are our enemies we call them dictatorships.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[c6gunner]

Exactly. You do remember who was president at the time, right?

Yep, that would be the guy who graduated from Yale and Harvard, flew a multi-million dollar fighter jet well known for it's tendency to kill pilots without managing to get himself killed in the process, and then got himself elected president. What have you done?

You'd have to be an idiot in order to believe that Bush is an idiot. He may be inarticulate, unsophisticated, incapable of plotting and intentional deceit, and blinded by his faith, but he's a hell of a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for. Any conversation which starts of by denigrating his intellect is not a conversation worth having.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[tjstork]

Literally everything Bush has ever touched has turned to shit. It's a testimony to the greatness of the US that we survived him.

The rule is, regardless of political party, do not elect a President from Texas, ever again. The problem with Bush Jr was that he was a supremely effective politician - like, Bush Jr got pretty much everything he wanted, and a lot of it turned out to go south. Obama, if he had 10% of Bush Jr's political machine and strong arm ability, would canadian style single payer by now. Just imagine, Bush, with less control of Congress than Obama has, got a huge tax cut, federalized public schools with no child left behind, got medicare prescription drugs, doubled the funding for basically every federal research agency there is, doubled the defense budget, and, to top it off, even got two wars. Same thing with LBJ. He got Vietnam, medicare, medicaid, the whole great society, and everything he did, turned to shit. In essence, Obama, love him or hate him, has his most pressing fiscal problems are related to two presidents from Texas.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[narcolepticjim]

Do you not remember Hans Blix? Inspectors were in Iraq, checking out sites given to them by U.S. intelligence, and they were finding nothing. The U.S. warned the U.N. inspectors to get out because the invasion was imminent.

While Iraq did expel inspectors in the '90s, we effectively expelled them -- while they were doing their job and trying to warn us there was nothing to find -- in order to effect our invasion.

Also, I'd like you to substantiate your claim that Iraq could have secreted all their contraband nuclear processing equipment in a couple of days. The number of centrifuges alone would have taken a serious amount of planning and execution, with U.S. satellites watching all the while. Don't you think Colin Powell would have liked to go before the U.N. with something better than aluminum tubes (which weren't part of any nuclear program)?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[tomhath]

Who is modding these posts? +5 Insightful for repeating the ridiculous claim that invading Iraq could somehow make more oil available to the US? And 0 Flamebait for pointing out the absurdity of that claim? Have the Obama fanboys bought mod points on Slashdot?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Strep]

It was far easier to invade iraq than convince the green/democrat/idiot crowd to drill along our coastlines.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Alcoholist]

So why have they not invaded my country yet? Stupid piles of oil here in Canada. In fact, Canada produces more oil per year than Iraq ever has.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[ananamouse]

We attacked Iraq simply because we were not through killing people.

We had an army there, blood in our eyes, and the Taliban folded up like a cheep suit, and we just needed to kill some more people. It is not hard to understand. Syria was too small, Iran was what looked like a democracy and Iraq was playing grab ass. We decided to bust up the Arab Dictactor Frat-party which led to the Libyans to giving up their weapons and getting right with the human race.

20/20 hindsight is we probably should have picked Iran. There is as much oil in Brazil as in Saudi it turned out. It also turns out that Canada has as much energy in the tar sands as is in the oil elsewhere, and so does Venezuela in their tar sands.

 

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[coastwalker]

Peak oil will come, exactly when depends on the estimates of what is left to be found. A question akin to asking how long a piece of string is - it depends. Bush had several pressures on him to secure the Iraqi oil and deny it to Americas enemies, whatever the costs. One was the strong possibility that Iran would have another go at wiping out Saddam and taking it. Extension of American geopolitical power for another decade or so before the Chinese inevitably overtake. Finishing off the job his father had not been in a position to complete. Having an adventure, seriously I bet that if you could get Bush to be honest he would say that all of these were reasons for doing it.

The most overriding reason though seems to have been that the weapons inspectors were about to finish their job and give Saddam a clean bill of health. Saddam was about to get out of sanctions and back into free trade. For whatever reason Bush could not allow that to happen. So he ordered the weapons inspectors out and he and Blair lied to the people of the free world, claiming that they were going to take out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. It was as obvious then as it is obvious now that the toe-rags were lying to us. At the time I attended street protests against the war in Stockholm Sweden where I happend to be working.

The biggest question of all really has to be why our elected representatives had to come up with a lie to take us to war with. It troubles me that no one sees fit to ask this question. The whole media furore seems to be over what monsters these people were for lying to us. What would be far more useful would be to know why they lied.

What is wrong with our society that we have to be lied to by our leaders? Ever since I have lost faith in democracy, it is almost a waste of time if we are being constantly lied to. Maybe the Chinese benign dictatorship will prove a more successful model by the end of this century. They certainly appear to be able to get their shit together over global warming much quicker than the democracies of the West. I am sure that they will have Thorium reactors before the US does, they will have them because they have a long term perspective that enables them to build diverse support systems and not to blindly rely on monopolistic capitalism.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Gormm]

"...surely you'll scoff at the 'they had Weapons of Mass Destruction', argument, which is even more patently false than the first one."

It didn't matter whether Iraq possessed WMD. The surrender treaty signed to end Desert Storm required them to allow inspections. They instead shot at US aircraft and forbid UN inspections. Therefore the war was justified to kick down their doors and look around.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[quanticle]

We had an army there, blood in our eyes, and the Taliban folded up like a cheep suit, and we just needed to kill some more people.

Erm, you do realize that Iraq and Afghanistan are about a thousand miles from each other, right? Its not like one can simply say, "Well, Afghanistan is done. Where next?" and go directly to Iraq.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[quanticle]

Yeah, and the US is going to go ahead and invade every country that doesn't follow UN treaties? What about Iraq's intransigence made it different from this perspective?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, you do realize... Its not like one can simply say, "Well, Afghanistan is done. Where next?" and go directly to Iraq.

Dood, for the US military Iraq and Ecuador are next to each other.
By the way, Iraq and Afghanistan share a common border, and so does Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, future historians will remember Bush favorably for the fact that only thousands died after 911 and not hundreds of millions as was hoped for by the perps who organized the thing. (They are really sick)

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[dave87656]

Any conversation which starts of by denigrating his intellect is not a conversation worth having.

You mean like your statement "You'd have to be an idiot in order to believe that Bush is an idiot."

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom

Freedom by elaborate international horsetrading that likely stinks to high heaven but still freedom.

Freedom from a dictator with a very loose grip on reality repeatedly upsetting a delicate balance in a rather violent part of the world. Both for your own sake and for the sake of the neighbors (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) and for the sake of the Iraqi themselves no matter which tribe.

I made one mistake and I think many others "of my kind" made the same mistake: I massively underestimated how incredibly willing and eager so many "muslims" would be to kill and maim other muslims: that's where the death toll and injuries really jumps up. Yes I'm not unfamiliar with how widespread it is and has been for centuries but it still surprised me, I should have known better, I can see that in retrospect.

The "second" Iraq war really wasn't one war, nor two, it was three wars:
- The war of dethroning Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi national socialist Baath party. This war was effectively won in days in what should be regarded as the most efficient and humane war in known history.
- The war against remaining Baath supporters. This war was won when Al Qaida over time showed their true colors of madness and cruelty and the remaining Baath supporters pledged alliance to the new Iraq. It was nearly lost courtesy of the fucktards in Abu Graibh who imho should hang.
- The war against Al Qaida in Iraq. This war was won with the help of former Baath supporters and "the surge".

The continuing violence in Iraq is pure terrorism. It will end when enough muslims outside Iraq realize that anyone who claims to speak on behalf of God in any religion anywhere is closer to a demon than an angel.

Purple thumbs up! And kudos to the Iraqi which recently threw his shoes at that other Iraqi who threw his shoes at Bush. The really hard fight for freedom begins now and will last for a hundred years or into eternity: that they don't lapse into the ignorant mindset of westerners who take their freedoms for granted. ...

As for oil the US for the most part doesn't get its oil from the middle east and certainly not Iraq. Go look at the figures from the US Department of Energy.

As for "WMDs" (there's no such thing, those kinds of weapons are properly labeled either ABC weapons or NBC weapons, guess why "ABC" and "NBC" wasn't used by the US media...) everybody including the US have been oh so helpful and incredibly sweet about hushing up and subtly obscuring the Russian escapade involving columns of vehicles going from Iraq to Syria. Doesn't really matter any more as the "WMD" angle was (perhaps intentionally as part of the realpolitik horsetrading) botched from the get-go. Weapons can be destroyed but where's the point in that when those who make the weapons are let go? A certain female Iraqi scientist now residing in Syria under the protection of the Syrian national socialist Baath party comes to mind and there are sure to be plenty of other less "famous" persons like her. And of course you know where the Iraqi Baathist Air Force planes ended up right? Lots of stuff going on, cards changing hands, everybody gets a slice of the cake and plays along for now, real diplomacy is never seen publicly.

As for so-called "journalists" they're mostly nothing but statist idiotarians who should praise the fact that justice is but a flawed implementation of an abstract concept: if it wasn't they would long ago have died more cruelly than those killed by Al Qaida (if it's even possible to beat decapitation by handsaw, electric drills through the scull,.or being roasted alive in an oven).

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

If you invaded Iraq for oil that would be the dumbest move ever. The war to day as cost americans more than nothing else US has ever engaged into. If all that cash you have been invested in R&D, the US would be running on nuclear fusion and flying car by now!

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[INT 21h]

Ah, yes, invading other nations "to take their oil" isn't a "desperation measure", but investing in domestic industry is. What world are you living in?

Wait, I thought it was all about Unobtainium?

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, Iraq and Afghanistan share a common border, and so does Afghanistan and Iraq.

They do?

/me looks at map.

So they do, and it appears to be a fucking big one with its own name, Iran.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[c6gunner]

And, the thing is, too, is that there are absolutely no guarantees that we can come up with an alternative energy system simply by throwing money on it.

Canada is already pulling oil out of sand, at competitive prices. In fact, oil imports from Canada make up something like 30%-40% of US oil imports. You're just making up excuses now.

I guess the thing is, right now, yeah, in hindsight, it all looks like a big mistake, but the thing is, it was a mistake rationally made, as most disasters genuinely are.

Yes, it was - just not for the reasons you're listing.

I don't even want to start commenting on your ideas about isolationism. You'll figure things out eventually. Best of luck.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Thuktun]

Iraq was deliberately and obviously preventing the inspections that they had agreed to in their surrender in the Kuwait war. All Iraq had to do to prevent the new war was allow inspections

And this clearly implies that they must actually be developing nuclear weapons, rather than their obviously bellicose leader being pigheaded about foreign nationals bossing him around in his own country.

Re:Peak Oil is Not a Troll

[Naturalis Philosopho]

I don't know about where you live, but out here in the middle east (of the U.S.A.) there are plenty of people who would invade their grandmother if gas gets above $4/gallon again and someone sold them a line that they could make fuel out of old people. Heck, they'd invade Canada just for the fun of it. Don't underestimate the stupid shit that people will believe. Heck, you believe that Hussein not only gave away WMD technology but that no evidence of it has turned up in other countries by now...

No wonder its so expensive

[Daswolfen]

... in the Auction House. At least on my server.

Total Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thorium reactions do produce weaponizable materials.

Thorium is harder to work with than uranium.

Uranium reactions are perfectly safe unless you're a retard. The Russians were retards when they built Chernobyl. Three Mile Island had no "disaster" and is still working today. Even on it's worst day, TMI released less radioactive material into the atmosphere than a traditional fossil fuel burning power plant.

The byproducts of modern nuclear reactors are easier to handle and safer for the environment than the original uranium that came out of the ground.

Uranium is not anywhere close to running out. It remains the most common heavy element by far.

All of that said, WE CAN BUILD BOTH! Why do so many idiots think this is a case of one-or-the-other?

About Thorium Reactors

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule of thumb: If you read anything about nuclear phyics (nukular pysikcss) on slashdot, it is VERY probable (70% is a very careful estimation) it's uninformed or plainly wrong.

If my post below belongs to the 70+% or 30-% is up to you to decide but I'll write it anyway as I think I know a few very interesting things you might not have heard about (most of this is relatively recent research).

ADS: Accelerator Driven System and Thorium Reactor
You take a proton beam and aim it at a "target" in which the protons smash out neutrons (spallation). These neutrons now can get stuck in atoms around the target and become other elements (transmutation). If you use the "right" element it can happen that the new element becomes fissionable after having caught a neutron.
That is what happens in ONE version of a Thorium Reactor (a breeder): You shoot a neutron into 232-Th and get 233 Th (plus a gamma quant, but that's not interesting for now). This becomes 233 Pa after 22 minutes which again decays to 233 U with a halftime of 27 days.
This is the stuff you want for fission! After a while you get an equilibrium of elements in your reactor, thus you create as much new fuel with your incoming neutrons as you burn. Other isotopes you get have a high chance to become fissionable material sooner or later (in the chain of decay and neutron catching, you can get the fissionable materials 233 Th (15 barn, for those who know what a "barn" is. Higher number means higher probability of fisson), 233 U (532 b), U235 (580 b), 239 U (15 b), 238 Np (2100 b), 239 Pu (740 b)); for other elements that get created, you also get equilibriums as you go (for example, the Thorium reactor also creates bad, bad Pu, but as you also destroy as much as you create, the issue is not that bad and you only get very little of it that you have to dispose (for example, when you exchange old fuel for fresh one; this is a very important contrast to current reactors which create (based on their design) more and more and more Pu).

What is good about this?
The reactor itself is sub-critical, thus you NEED external neutrons from somewhere or it just dies down.
There is a lot of cheap Thorium around.
You get radioactive waste but after some 300 years, the radioactivity is less than the one of natural uranium ore. So, you somehow have to put the stuff away for a century and are relatively safe. That seems MUCH more managebale than putting the stuff away for...hum... 100.000 years.
You could use existing accelerator-technology.

What is bad?
A lot of research has still to be done about... all sorts of things. For example, we are years from good (strong and stable) enough proton beams. There are no decent materials that can be used as target (note you basically smash it with protons and then have thermic neutrons in it as well!) etc etc.
You also need a VERY stable accelerator. 1 GeV (we do have these today) with like 25-40 mA (ugghh... no) that are very, very stable (UGGHH! You can only tolerate fails that last seconds max and it also cannot happen often per year (once to twice per year if you also create electricity and like ten times of that if you only use the thing to burn waste); we are pretty far from that!)
You have lots of nasty, free neutrons that happily do not only activate your fuel but also... anything and everything that is near (you know, walls, the accelerator, everything). There also might be other waste, depending on the configuration (moderator etc) of the reactor.
The shape/kind/mix of the fuel is a VERY complex thing that I have to omit for now (one issue is a lot of He (you know alpha-particles) that that might deform your fuel-pellets or... stuff).

IF this thing works one day (ADS with a thorium reactor), you might even do much more than just use is as "normal nuclear reactor". You can mix in "other stuff" into the fuel and then "burn" that as well (the stuff catches neutrons and then becomes "something else" that you can fission nicely, thus "burn" the stuff. What is the "stuff" I talk about

So why are we not building these reactors?

[Baldrson]

The problem is that carbon plumbing is required and the only form of carbon they have tried, graphite, has a problem with swelling and turning to carbon black under neutron bombardment so it loses its structural integrity.

Fortunately there is a solution to this problem: glassy carbon plumbing.

Unfortunately, the capital markets have failed to put money in the hands of even a few of the right kind of people.

It may be the most important tool for saving the planet is the guillotine.

Youtube video that covers 3h+ of TechTalks in 16m

[electrosoccertux]

Your comment reminds me of a youtube video I watched recently. He briefly mentions this conflict of profit-interests that you brought up.
The author condensed over 3 hours of TechTalks videos down into 16 minutes. It's the most comprehensive video covering Thorium reactors I've seen yet.

That's completely wrong.

[Dr. Spork]

I'm not a nuclear physicist either, but I can tell that you don't understand much about this issue. The most obvious mistake you make is what you said about enrichment. Whaa?? A ten second search would reveal to you that the reactor-relevant Thorium is Th-232. So do we need to enrich natural Thorium to get Th-232? God damn it, look at Wikipedia!. What is the abundance of Th-232 in natural Thorium? You will find the answer is: 100%. So the comment about enriching is 100% bullshit. I suspect deliberate FUD, maybe not originating with you, but it's sad to see this kind of crap circulating in Norway. Is that like the Kansas of Europe?

Second, there have already been several research reactors, not 20 years in the future but over 50 years in the past. Guess what? It worked great. Yeah, we could build them better now. India is doing it.

Third, the debate in Norway is, I presume, not about whether you will use Thorium reactors domestically to produce power. You get almost all you need from hydro, which is a great, clean energy source. The debate is rather about whether you will export Thorium to countries that want to also produce clean power but don't have mountains and rivers like yours. That Norwegians are having a debate about this is a little sickening to me - as though you might have a moral problem with selling this clean fuel to the world, but you're perfectly happy being the third largest exporter of oil, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia. I think the debate you should be having is about the morality of feeding the world's oil addiction. But instead of just contributing to this problem you are also deliberately putting the brakes on one of its most plausible solutions? If I were Norwegian, I'd be ashamed.

Why? Quite simple.

[RogueWarrior65]

Uneducated people see or hear the word "nuclear" and think "OH MY EFFING GAWD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" or think China Syndrome which is typical Hollywood bunk or think CHERNOBYL! EVERYBODY PANIC! Or just as bad, some do-gooder senator decides that a few desert tortoises are more valuable than a solar farm in a fairly remote area that would go a long way to solving California's electricity needs, or as bad as the NIMBYs who kill off a wind farm in another remote desert area because the power lines would have to cross the desert. You can't have it both ways, people. *facepalm*

More like the next Nuclear Fail

[SD-Arcadia]

I suggest anyone seriously interested in our energy future to take the time to go through this report called "Technofixes" by CorporateWatch UK
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=3126
According to this report, only wind and solar come out as having the potential to be both socially desirable and effective in combatting climate change. Hypothetical 4th generation nuclear reactors, even if decided upon, would be too little too late because it takes long to deploy at great up-front cost, and the waste problems remain unsolved (despite what you may hear about the magic of breeder reactors etc.)

Re:More like the next Nuclear Fail

[MtViewGuy]

However, unlike the waste from uranium-fueled reactors, thorium reactors create waste with far shorter half-lives--which means waste storage costs are WAY lower since you don't need the shielding of the waste to last thousands of years.

Re:More like the next Nuclear Fail

[TheTurtlesMoves]

How much wind and solar do you need to replace *current* nuclear power? A crap load that will sit around over half the time doing *nothing*.

Wind and solar have little chance doing much in 20 years time for the simple reason no one wants to pay that much for power (and we can't build that much stuff that quickly), and we are not investing in large energy storage that would also cost a fortune and again spend much of its time doing nothing. And they are not "free" in any sense and "socially desirable" really means build it somewhere else.

Nuclear is your only hope of replacing fossil fuels in the near future. Anything else is 20 years away. And what the hell is wrong with 20 years anyway, its not that long, aren't we suppose to be putting our short sightedness behind us?

"There is no reason to build a new system"

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be why Italy is getting one now!

nation states

[astar]

I support Iran's national soverignity. You tend to say they cannot have nuclear power. This is an evil position, and has no legal basis. Perhaps you do not like nation-states.

On the other hand, Iranian nuclear weapons would not be helpful. And there is actually some basis for taking that position.

Safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Molten fluoride salts are not known for safe handling. They attack metal, glass, plastics and ceramics. They react with water to form HF. Graphite does not weld easily and has some problems with absorbing high doses of neutrons. We should study it enough at least to see whether it could come on line before fusion. I don't see it being cheaper than wind or solar but it is base load power and could help us process spent fuel

Re:Safety

[naasking]

Molten fluoride salts are not known for safe handling.

Experience suggests otherwise. Any dangers due to fluoride salts are more than compensated by the fact that the reactor does not suffer from steam explosions or regulation complexities of a light water reactor. Furthermore, several molten salt reactors have been built and run for extended periods of time. This technology is proven.

And fusion is at least 30 years out, I guarantee you. The only promising fusion possibility is Brussard's Polywell, and if that pans out, we're talking about a whole new untested technology that will take decades to refine.

Thorium is tried and proven right now.

Re:Safety

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The only promising fusion possibility is Brussard's Polywell...

Only if you permit the laws of physics to be wrong and a number of experiments to also be wrong. ITER could work. But its not the best next step, and the multinational nature costs the project huge gobs of money with internal politics and the like.

Also most say that for next gen conventional nuclear we are looking at 10-20 years at least as well (for the experimental reactors).

Personally I think we should get started.

Re:Safety

[naasking]

Only if you permit the laws of physics to be wrong and a number of experiments to also be wrong.

Polywell doesn't violate any laws of physics that I'm aware of. The physical limits of electrostatic confinement do not apply to the Polywell fusor since it uses magnetism for the bottle.

Also most say that for next gen conventional nuclear we are looking at 10-20 years at least as well (for the experimental reactors).

Thermonuclear fusion has been failing for over 30 years now, and it will probably continue to fail for another 30 years.

Re:Safety

[TheTurtlesMoves]

For the pollywell to work it need to keep electrons and ions away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Yet the ion-election interaction probability is orders of magnitude higher than fusion. So without black magic it will use more energy that it produces. It does not matter how they are confined.

Thermonuclear fusion has failed to produce a working reactor. But confinement has been improved over a million fold. If we do that for the next 20 years, we will have DD fusion reactors, let along DT reactors.

I think we should peruse both options. Conventional should be focused on energy production and waste management today. I personally think molten salt reactors offer potential well beyond solid fuel based reactors.

Re:Safety

[naasking]

For the pollywell to work it need to keep electrons and ions away from thermodynamic equilibrium. Yet the ion-election interaction probability is orders of magnitude higher than fusion. So without black magic it will use more energy that it produces. It does not matter how they are confined.

See the paper referenced here.

Re:Safety

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I have read it (not wiki, but the real papers). I did do quite a bit of plasma and nuclear physics you know. Buzzard pushed his idea when he had only detected a few neutrons and then claimed it was the best anyone ever done (it was not by a long shot). If you want a dark horse fusion idea that can actually work, this is your best bet.

For some reason everyone thinks the science is rock solid when it comes to Climate studies. But when it comes to the next crackpot with the *same* fusion idea that been tried many many times before, a 100 years of experimental data and very very good theoretical understanding is now all wrong. We are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here, entropy is increasing. A hot thing that is in contact with a cold thing will lose heat to the cold thing. At the very least the people in question should be able to say why it will be different this time round. But they don't, instead they make crazy claims like that they can do boron fusion even though its 1000x harder and lower power density and despite the fact they *can't* break even with DD or even DT.

Re:Safety

[naasking]

When has Polywell fusion ever been tried before? It's markedly different from the Farnsworth fusor if that's what you're referring to.

Where is the "hot thing in contact with a cold thing"? There is no physical contact of this sort in Polywell fusion. Unless you're referring to the particles involved?

Indeed, Brussard explained in many venues why Polywell fusion is quite different from previous ideas, and he was hardly a crackpot.

Re:Safety

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The Russians did back in the 60s. Thats where the idea came from. The "virtual" cathode/anode idea was studied quite a bit by them and Buzzard references them in one of his few and quite poor papers.

Even wikipedia can help you with the "why it won't work" (under the fusion energy IIRC).

Electrons in a plasma emit massive amounts of x rays (Bremsstrahlung radiation). The amount depends on the charge of the ions, so with Boron fusion the x rays is 5 times higher than with DT or DD fuels. It also needs to be hotter since the protons need to overcome a higher potential in order to hit a B atom. This mean that no matter how hot the plasma is the fusion energy will *always* be less than the xray energy and the plasma will cool very rapidly or rather never get hot enough for fusion.

Now in a polywell or a fusor, they work by accelerating ions to high energy. ie a hot thing. Electrons are in the background plasma or directly injected (some Russians experiments did this) and are at low energy. The cold thing. They occupy the same space and ions/electrons can and *do* collide. A hot and cold thing in contact. Now if the probability of fusion is higher than the probability of colliding with an electron, you get some fusion before they loose all their energy to the electrons->xrays. But its not. You are about a million times more likely to hit an electron than to fuse.

We have a huge amount of experimental evidence and observations that back this up too. If something like this would work, we would have seen it work by now in some of the experiments back in the 60 and 70s. Asserting that everyone else is wrong without anything to back it up, and claiming that you can do H-B fusion when you can't even demonstrate a neutron yield at a fusor level, is a strong sign of heading towards crackpot territory. His scaling laws are literately pulled out of thin air. His talks further show how clearly he had no intention of dealing with the experimental and theoretical shortcomings of his claims.

This is widely accepted in the science community, with data to back it up. I find odd that something with speculative models and only long term predictions and almost no track record of validated models is held up as such a certainty (aka climate change) where something like this with *far far* more of consensus in the community and far more validated models and data and experiments, must surly be wrong. Faith will not make this work.

However don't read this as acceptance that tokamak is the only way to go. I think its one way, and currently has achieved the best confinement by a long shot. Other schemes should be perused, but lets make sure they at lest work in theory first. The Polywell does not.

thankyou

[fireylord]

now tell me again what this moralising and evangelising has to do with the subject at hand?

So why are we not building these reactors?"

[Helldesk Hound]

> So why are we not building these reactors?"

Because the USA wanted to build nuclear bombs.

Asked And Answered

[DynaSoar]

25 years ago in OMNI.

It's (thermal) neutrons. They're used for fuel breeding. You an build a thorium reactor to produce them but it requires extra equipment. A U/Pu reactor requires only shielding to slow them down. The US hasn't approved a thorium reactor for anything more than experimentation despite the ability to build full scale reactors because they want to be able to produce high grade (either fuel or weapons grade) fissionables at every possible location. The US has no interest in 'clean & safe' nuclear.

Check the fusion projects the US has backed vs. those it hasn't and see what differs between those.

AGW, Believing Scientists

[omb]

After the release of the ClimateGate emails from the CRU, East-Anglia, I have been looking myself at some of the data, including the recently re-collated Siberian data and and weather observation station data from US and Europe. From a previously neutral position, I have rapidly concluded that the CRU presentation is fraudulent and the data, at best, indicates a .6 dC per century over the last 100 years. Mann, Jones and IPCC results can only be replicated by completely Cherry Picking the data. The Hockey Stick is horseshit. Also CO2 levels lag, not lead temperature.

AGW is a scam to persuade the population to pay more for energy, and Carbon Trading schemes, which have similar validity to CDOs.

I know, from personal knowledge, that Oil Companies regularly understate reserves, talk up risks and Peak-Oil, and fail to build reserve refining capacity in order to elevate the oil price. At USD 23.00 per barrel most US and European Oil Co(s) make a reasonable commercial profit, tax paid to producer countries. Two sets of books are normal.

Bert Rutan, the aeronautical engineer, has also come to the same conclusion and published his interim analysis here,
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.Intro.AGW.b.pdf

Common sense tells you we are being lied to, and on a grand scale.

Thorium Fission Reactors, Fusion Reactors and Geothermal Taps and another 6 technologies are all feasible real re-newables which are not compromised by higher cost, and do not involve diverting plant crops to fuel, thereby putting up the cost of food.

is the OP so stupid

[nibbles2004]

you never ever , ever use thorium , never , be it on your head, matety jim. There some thing which are unaccetable and u buddy u just crossed the line, you have upset me.

Specialization leads to centralization

[snowwrestler]

Centralization is to some extent the direct result of specialization within society. Nuclear power is extremely complex and to work in it, one needs highly specialized training. The direct result is that only a small subset of the population will ever be able to build and operate nuclear power plants, and thus nuclear power generation will always be highly centralized. The same is true of coal power or natural gas power generation, or, for that matter, food and clothing production. The less time I spend managing these things myself, the more time available to me to improve in my own chosen area of specialization.

Aggressive war

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel [...] has very few allies in that region of the world

One wonders why. Until one remembers.

Not quite so I think.

[gbutler69]

There has been some recent break-throughs with Tokamak-style reactors where they've proven that the Plasma becomes self-stabilizing beyond a certain energy level. Sorry, I don't know where the link is right now. Perhaps someone else might know.

More tha meets the eye

[omb]

When I read your comment, I read it as since "I was 10" not "10 years out of school"

but in either form its dead on, Peak-Oil, Peak-Uranium are bullshit, and mean we want the price to go up.

What I find amazing is that so many sheeple fall for this, again and again.

An important point is why fusion research is still not going anywhere, that is important and deserves a much elevated political profile.

10 Minute presentation of LFTR

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this 10 minute mashup of liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeM-Dyuk6g

Iraq: had to end the stand-off

[r00t]

After the first war, Saddam started/continued killing Kurds in the north and Marsh Arabs in the south. We initially responded by creating no-fly zones.

Think about that for a moment. For about a decade, we patrol the sky over Iraq in some lame attempt to reduce genocide. It's continuous military action. It's an on-going cost, it doesn't work very well, and we can't just quit.

That had to end somehow, in a non-genocidal way. The hope had been that we could encourage a coup, but that wasn't successful. So, what would you have us do?

This Sounds....

[Ferretman]

...like a *danged* good idea. Let's do this. Now.

Offer the tchnology to Iran.

[brainproxy]

See if they take it. If they do, win/win.

Idiot

[Baldrson]

The idiot writes: "the enrichment process is more difficult and costly"

This is so ignorant it not only brings the rest of the unsupported assertions into question, it indicates the poster is an idiot.

India's Vision of Nuclear Technology

[sdisegno]

As mentioned by other /.ters india has been working on nuclear reactors using thorium fuel for quite some time.

"India is estimated to have a reserve of 2.25 lakh tonnes of Thorium, with an electricity generation potential of 1,55,000 gig watt-years, against just 61,000 tonnes of uranium, with an electricity generation potential of up to 42,000 gig watt-years only. The use of thorium for power generation had been a dream of the country's nuclear scientists as it would help make the nuclear programme all the more autonomous." ~ http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/05/stories/2007010511500100.htm

Among other things, nuclear scientists in India also believe that nuclear power will be the "primary source of power for the future":

"Right now we are talking of nuclear power as an electricity source, and it will be an important electricity source for a long time to come. Very soon we will reach a situation where the energy source, such as oil and gas, will be in short supply. As our energy use grows, we will have to tap all our energy resources such as hydro, coal, oil and gas. It looks to me that there will be a stress on all these sources.

Our nuclear energy sources, particularly from thorium, are vast. Our technology focus at the moment is how to generate electricity from thorium. What about a point of time when the general energy sources are stretched? The question then is from where will we get the energy for transportation? From where will we get the energy for industrial processes? Just as we get crude oil, and refine it into energy products such as petrol, diesel, kerosene, naphtha, etc., I think the day is not far off when we will have to look at nuclear energy as the primary energy source.

So the question is, using nuclear energy can you produce hydrogen? Or can you facilitate pyro-chemical or pyro-metallurgical processes. In all these, the important thing is the temperature at which the energy is available. In the PHWRs, you get energy at 300C, and in the FBR at 500C. But for other applications - energy conversion applications - you require energy at 1000C. This is a technology development challenge and this is something we have begun doing (Compact High Temperature Reactor) so that in the years to come, we can look at nuclear energy as a primary energy source.

So, the first thrust area is to increase the share of nuclear power in the electricity generated. The second is to expand the source of nuclear power as the primary energy source. The third is what we can do in the area of agriculture. Thanks to the Green Revolution, we are better placed in agricultural output. Even so, oilseeds and pulses are areas that require more attention. That is where the strong point of BARC is - the mutant seeds developed in BARC. It is more focussed on oilseeds and pulses." ~ http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2104/stories/20040227003810000.htm

Re:India's Vision of Nuclear Technology

[sdisegno]

Also: "India is likely to share its nuclear technology with Sri Lanka for power generation using Thorium as the main source of energy, Science and Technology Minister Tissa Vitharana said Friday. The Daily Mirror newspaper quoted Professor Vitharana as saying India is prepared to support Sri Lanka with setting up a nuclear power plant and that he had requested IAEA support for the project. Professor Vitharana also told the paper he had invited Indian nuclear scientists to conduct a feasibility study on the use of Thorium deposits – said to be found in abundance along Sri Lanka’s southern costal belt – as a source of nuclear energy for power generation." ~ http://www.nuclearcounterfeit.com/?p=1248

bombs baby, bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the bombs that people want, not the power. Power, shmower. Who cares. A bit of electricity here and there. Big deal. Now a nuclear blast, well that comes in with a bang! Noone has to use a fallout shelter with electricity, now do they? NO. But a bomb, well its da bomb!

Poison with U238????

[cdn-programmer]

Poison with U238? A lot of good that will do since its fairly simple to chemically separate the Th from the U before you stuff it into the reactors!

Or are you meaning something else? IE provide a blend of Th and natural U when we make the fuel.

BTW - you are correct about the article. IMHO its pretty bad.

Re:Why? Here's why we should:

[mgraye]

if this - http://www.chernobyl.org.uk/chernobyl.html/ can be completely avoided using Thorium fusion, then we're all in... Just let me go get my hardhat and kit. First demonstrate the cost/benefit models in their entirety; second, nationalize the construction effort and operate it as a full financial disclosure project for all public and private participants so that we may measure progress against the planning model; third, lets get back to work here in America. Cost savings over current fossile fuel electric generation operations can be given back to the market after it is used to pay up the Pension Guarantee Corporation and pay down the National Debt to a sustainable level. Future solved?

The social consequences of the Chernobyl disaster are almost unmeasurable. Almost 2 million people either live or lived in the contaminated regions, over 250,000 people had been resettled, mostly in cities where they were strangers to that way of life. Nearly 100,000 people were directly involved in the liquidation of the Chernobyl disaster results. I have been told on good authority that of the 750,000 soldiers, firemen and civilians who were involved in the cleanup of Chernobyl over 50% are now dead. Only 15% have showed no signs of cancers which leaves a staggering 300,000 people who are dying as a result of the explosion. In Belarus alone 100,00 people were involved in the cleanup, the social consequences are horrific.

Some may claim that we will innovate our way into a "safe" fusion reaction using Uranium. They may commence that work just as soon as we get the Thorium reactors online at the regional grids, and shutting down all that smog and heavy metals getting spewed out by current generation thermal generation facilities.

Nope

[ifwm]

"Which we will run out of in 10 years."

You're mistaken.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1495612&cid=30623318

Other writing on the subject

[beachdog]

Here is another writer who is developing a nuclear reactor based low-CO2 future scenario. Read it carefully, his book is an interesting exploration, but not "the solution".

Thorium for reactors, and the larger context of using nuclear electric generation to replace CO2 emitting coal generation is discussed in:

Whole Earth Discipline An Eco-pragmatist Manifesto
by Stewart Brand

Here is an online book that organizes a huge spectrum of CO2 reduction schemes. This is worth reading for gaining perspective on just what fraction of the CO2 problem might be addressed using nuclear electricity generation.

David MacKay: Without Hot Air

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Just yesterday I wished to make some progress toward a low carbon lifestyle. I started up my van [ 243,000 miles at 22.7 miles/gallon x 7 lb of carbon per gallon of gas x 3 lb of CO2 per pound of carbon ] and thought oops did I just emit 224,000 pounds of CO2?

it's the storage stupid

[Soudis]

Many people here talk about how safe or how cheap it is to use either thorium or uranium. The real problems however are not plant safety or cost, but how to store the huge amounts of nuclear waste. Most of it needs to be stored thousands of years until it's finally safe. There is still no way of doing that, the material is stored in old salt mines without knowing if this will last long enough. Until 1994 it was even legal to just drop it into the sea. This year it was discovered that from the 90s on (until this year!) France was shipping it's nuclear waste to Siberia, where it was stored on a old parking lot. In Italy nuclear waste was packed on old ships by the mafia which then were sank in the mediterranean or atlantic sea. And I'm pretty sure that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Uranium or thorium, nuclear energy is NOT the future, it's a serious threat to our (grand) children!

Hoopla

[Anonymous Coward]

My Dad had the following comment to this posting...he worked in geophysics in the 60s...

Louis .......... this idea is NOT new ! We were discussing the use of Thorium in reactors back in the 60's. The problem is that Thorium (in our rocks) is always found in association with Uranium, so the question was "what can we do with all of the Thorium tailings ?". Well, the tailings still exist and are RADIOACTIVE ! In the Elliot Lake scenario, they were put in a hollow between two hills. I overflew this when I was testing my newest airborne spectrometer, and MY METERS ALL WENT OFF SCALE ! Over time, some of the tailing were removed by groundwaters flowing into the nearby lake. It was reported that the fish were born stunted. I don'y know how true that is because the media never reported on it.

Time has passed, so now old news becomes new news.

Dad

Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are Alchemy

[Dr.Ruud]

Wind Mills and Electric Solar Panels are the Alchemy of our Age.

Don't let their green image fool you, the "hidden costs" are big.
Even in the few cases where their appliances are somewhat practical, we have real alternatives available.

Why take energy from moving Air, when you have moving Water?
Why use the thin rays from above (Fire), when you have a molten core (Earth) below?

Let's build (clean) geothermal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geothermal_hotspots.JPG

Photovoltaics can do some:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png
but Solar Thermal Power Plants already do it better:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

Let's let them move the water:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/090729-jellyfish-mixers.html ;)

No, Tube Alloys

[Kupfernigk]

(The UK Government name for its side of the Manhattan Project in WW2)

Sunlight is thin...

[ResidentSourcerer]

I question the "All the power we need can come from solar and wind." According to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption we use an average of 1.5 Terawatts. A square kilometer has a million square meters. Sunlight runs about 250 W/m2 when averaged over 24 hours. Assume 25% efficient solar cells, and a 50% placement rate. (Leaving aisles for service, etc) So our million m2 is now 125,000 m2 Our power/km2 is 31 MW So to get 1.5 TW requires just under half a million square kilometers. Hmm. Wind turbines currently come in 5 MW chunks, and have an average utilization of about 30%. So about 700 turbines per GW. 700,000 turbines per TW or about a million turbines. This totally ignores the storage problem. High altitude wind power may work, but we have no practice with 25 kilometer long kite strings. I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all solution. We have to explore all energy technologies, and get a lot better an energy use.

Prove it or its just baseless speculation

[bussdriver]

Nuclear power never was cost effective. Nobody has proven it can be competitive. I don't care if you can find unlimited amounts of the stuff - I know it is safer now than in the past; I'm not convinced the disposal process works as far as uranium and I remember how much that was/is downplayed to this day so I'm reasonably skeptical about the claims on Thorium. Above all other issues; the technology has never payed off - it requires massive government funding to "compete" at all levels. At least the French have the government runs them instead of subsidizing private monopolies and those still run at a loss.

When the arguments continue to be that alternatives are too expensive to coal because we don't include a cost to the CO2--- why is it that nuclear power gets so much attention when it costs more than the greener alternatives? Grid power storage is possible - it may also be unprofitable. The reality is that we will all HAVE to pay more for electricity - and most likely the public will not stomach direct payment and will unknowingly pay indirectly with their various taxes.

-
Why is it we praise and defend our military when they lack the profit motive and benefits of the free market capitalism? Is this not socialism? Why don't we have competing military contractors providing all our "defense" needs? Why is government health insurance, or an energy grid is unthinkable? Is it because soldiers are the only professionals who can act unselfishly?

Re:Thorium

[Nefarious Wheel]

Guys, can we start talking about TFA again? I'm interested in Thorium as a nuclear fuel. The whole middle-east political situation is a re-hash of discussions that seems to hijack each and every discussion about fuel. Isn't there anything we can say about the technology? Or has this become simply a more accessible forum than the mainstream press?

Oh wait. Damn, started that one again...

It's the Navy, folks

[JustJohnny]

The main reason virtually all of the reactors in the U.S. use enriched uranium in a pressurized light-water design is that that is the only reasonable kind of reactor to put into a submarine or an aircraft carrier. The people who designed all of our reactors based their training on Rickover's requirements for a reactor that is light enough to power something reasonably-sized that floats, won't blow up/melt down as long as a big group of able seaman maintain constant vigilance over it, and helps the military out by producing plutonium for bombs as part of its waste. Carbon-footprint, environmental impact, efficiency, long-term storage of waste, and the like are all things that were never on the table in the first place. And once the machinery was put in place to crank basically the same Navy design out over and over, the industry got stuck in a rut.

I don't drive a tank to work, and I don't have a Howitzer in my backyard. My electrical power shouldn't be generated by a reactor whose design is a leftover from the Navy's think-tank.

The people who say "OMG! Thorium leaves waste that is much more radioactive! Cooties!" are poorly-educated. The more radioactive nuclear materials are, the sooner they'll burn up and become something less icky. "The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" (to quote Blade Runner). Highly-radioactive waste is the good kind, not the bad kind.

I want this stuff to power my car

[Shompol]

One tank should last me to the Mars and back.

Humanitarian Concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

The Liberation of Iraq has saved the lives of some 300,000 Iraqis.