You should read my articles before you point me out for not reading yours. The reason I didn't read your article is it keeps crashing my chrome browser.
Also as far as algae, I said nothing about algae, I posed it as a question.
It is interesting about algae being able to use any type of water but is it a viable solution right now? Why are we not using it? In the case of LFTR reactors they are not being used today because of the reasons I outlined here: Ulterior Motives. I would be interested in seeing more about the algae solution. Is it being tested? Is it actually producing fuel? What's the power density of the fuel? The CO2 output of the fuel per gallon? Please re-post your your well thought out document in HTML please so I can read it.
You stated, "Recycling plastics waste does not make money. Also, where do you think the carbon in algae comes from, the moon?"
You are wrong plastic waste recycling can supply us with 74 billion dollars per year in gas at today's prices ( By the way no one is paying me to promote this solution.) With the cost of recycling in USA we would earn 147.16 billion in 10 years. That assumes a life time of the recycling plants of 10 years which is an extremely conservative estimate and is probably closer to 30 years.
You said, "There are many technical hurdles between now and a future in which such a reactor would be a suitable replacement for transportation fuel. "
Those hurdles are no greater than the hurdles that the US undertook in creating an atomic bomb, or in landing on the moon. With a Manhattan style project which originally took 4 years in the 1940's we could overcome the technical hurdles. Also it isn't a LFTR type of Thorium reactor, but India will have their first 500 MWe plant running in 2013! Six more will follow in the next few years that are meant for commercial use. If India can do it then why can't the US do it?
You said, "If you use beats, you will also need lyrics."
Very witty, it seems you pay more attention to spelling than substance. I would suggest you read my articles before you judge them as being wrong unlike your article it doesn't crash ones browser to read. (By the way I wouldn't point this out except your being so nasty.)
I include all the math necessary to come to my conclusions in my article.
I guess it's easier to point out spelling mistakes than it is to read a mathematical analysis of substance.
Generation IV reactors can provide the whole US economy with an energy solution for 1000 years. That's every last Watt of power. Can algae do the same?
By the way nothing in my first statement statement indicated that there was a reason to not use algae as a solution. On the contrary I feel we should use almost all forms of alternative energy sources. With the exclusion of the use of ethanol. I didn't bother pointing out that your document crashes my browser, I guess I should have pointed that out originally but I assumed it was my browser that had the problem and just posed the questions instead.
I would be interested in seeing more about fuel from algae, as for corn based, I know it is not a good thing. It makes no sense and under no circumstance will it ever become a viable solution. It's good to see that this uses otherwise wasted land, but can it be scaled.
If they could find a plant species to use that would grow in land that has no vegetation whatsoever like maybe desert. Then it might make sense. But you would still have the problem with supplying it with water which is becoming ever an increasing precious substance. What's the difference using beats in this respect? I venture none.
As for algae, doesn't one run into the same problem, what's the difference? Anyone?
Let's invest as heavily in Air Carbon Capture by recycling plastics waste to pay for it and in development of generation IV nuclear reactors based on methods that don't use lot's of Uranium (as in non spent Uranium. Spent Uranium is O.K. since those types of reactors get rid of the long term waste. If we invested in generation IV nuclear reactors, we could convert all our coal plants for 1.6 Trillion in capital cost..
Soul Powered. The apple followers put their heart and soul into following Apple. It's good to see that Apple is doing something with their money that is worth while. Google is doing a lot of the same. I am sure it's because it's good PR but I certainly like to hear about it. I just wish that Apple and Google would invest in building a network of Air Carbon Capture devices. Funding the Air Carbon Capture with the profits made from building a network of plastic recycling units. We waste 37,000,000 tons of plastic each year that can be turned into millions of gallons of fuel and sold for a huge profit.
We need to use only 0 emissions energy in the US, We need to implement only new generation IV nuclear reactors, Wind, Solar, we must convert ALL Coal fire plants from to safe LFTR reactors (1.6 Trillion in capital cost) [rawcell.com], we must recycle all plastic wastes (for the environment sake) and make money at it and produce the fuel for our cars at the same time and increase dramatically the fuel efficiency of the vehicles coming off the assembly line( not impossible we can improve it, we have done it with test vehicles), and we must Institute a System of Air Carbon Capture. We can do this with the money made from recycling. We waste 37 million tons of plastic each year in the US ALONE. Worldwide the numbers are huge. That doesn't even get into the fact that sorting out the plastic pays a large portion of the sorting costs of the rest of the trash which can also be recycled. The world produces 500,000,000 tons of waste each year. A large portion of which is plastics. Recycling Waste Can Pay for Air Carbon Capture and for LFTR Capital Conversion Costs! This money would help with the research and development associated with other energy solutions. It would Cost 1.6 Trillion to convert all Coal fire plants to LFTR reactors. I have crunched the numbers. India Will Have its' First 500 MW Thorium Reactor Next Year. With a Manhattan style project we would be able to solve the problems with Thorium reactors in probably less time than it took to do the Manhattan project (4 years) for less than the 23 billion it would take in today's dollars for that project to be completed. The remaining problem with Thorium reactors is the material for the inner containers, and several solutions have been proposed including replacement modules like car oil filters. After that we should FREELY export our technology to the world which benefits us as well as other nations or as trade for debt to other countries.
We need to use only 0 emissions energy in the US, We need to implement only new generation IV nuclear reactors, Wind, Solar, we must convert ALL Coal fire plants from to safe LFTR reactors (1.6 Trillion in capital cost), we must recycle all plastic wastes (for the environment sake) and make money at it and produce the fuel for our cars at the same time and increase dramatically the fuel efficiency of the vehicles coming off the assembly line( not impossible we can improve it, we have done it with test vehicles), and we must Institute a System of Air Carbon Capture. We can do this with the money made from recycling. We waste 37 million tons of plastic each year in the US ALONE. Worldwide the numbers are huge. That doesn't even get into the fact that sorting out the plastic pays a large portion of the sorting costs of the rest of the trash which can also be recycled. The world produces 500,000,000 tons of waste each year. A large portion of which is plastics. Recycling Waste Can Pay for Air Carbon Capture and for LFTR Capital Conversion Costs!
This money would help with the research and development associated with other energy solutions. It would Cost 1.6 Trillion to convert all Coal fire plants to LFTR reactors. I have crunched the numbers. India Will Have its' First 500 MW Thorium Reactor Next Year. With a Manhattan style project we would be able to solve the problems with Thorium reactors in probably less time than it took to do the Manhattan project (4 years) for less than the 23 billion it would take in today's dollars for that project to be completed. The remaining problem with Thorium reactors is the material for the inner containers, and several solutions have been proposed including replacement modules like car oil filters.
After that we should FREELY export our technology to the world which benefits us as well as other nations or as trade for debt to other countries.
We have been polluting the water ever since the industrial age began and draining the water supply at the same time. Aquifers are getting depleted, its going to become an expensive problem. It is good to see this technology finally come about . It should help us bring water to arid lands. They say that with global warming it isn't the heat that is going to affect the plant life but the lack of water supply. It is an expensive proposition however to lay thousands of miles of pipe. But perhaps it will become cheap enough to take and desalinate water and fill up major rivers so that natural distribution can be restored. It would take a lot of energy to do it but with the two orders of magnitude cheaper maybe it would be cost effective? I would also suggest that we stop polluting the water with all the plastics and use it to recycle. We produce 37,000,000 tons of plastic each year that ends up in landfills and in the water. We could convert this into fuel energy. I have done a cost analysis on the energy from plastic recycling.
It reminds me of the Dr. House episode where everyone on the plane develops symptoms because a person comes down with a sickness. In the case of House the person had been scuba diving but they thought it was meningitis. So everyone started developing weird symptoms. This problem has been perpetuated by people that are against any solution that doesn't agree with what they want. The same thing happened with LFTR reactors back in 1942 when they were first suggested and continued later on when nuclear was given a bad name due to the poor technological nuclear solutions selected. If it wasn't for interest groups we would have no nuclear melt downs. No global warming and we would have abundant energy. We can still produce this energy solution for relatively cheap. It isn't too late! I even have a way to pay for the energy solution!
It is also possible to operate without beryllium fluoride in the salt. It is possible to operate on lithium fluoride-thorium fluoride eutectic without beryllium, as the French LFTR design, the "TMSR", has chosen. Also as far as Zirconium, LFTR's create Zirconium during their burning process as a byproduct. Fission of 1000 kg U-233 produces several chemicals essential for industry, readily extracted from a LFTR, including 150kg xenon, 125kg neodymium (high-strength magnets), 20kg medical molybdenum-99, 20kg radiostrontium, zirconium, rhodium, ruthenium, and palladium. Don't take my word for it. There is NO shortage of natural resources. Sufficient other natural resources such as beryllium, lithium, nickel and molybdenum are available to build thousands of LFTRs. see Wikipedia. http://rawcell.com
I responded to this but don't know what happened to the response I posted. So here it is again. Workable designs for trains, houses, and ships have been done. They simply bury a preset amount of liquid salts in containers sixty feet bellow ground in sealed containers. There are companies working on just such designs that I have read about. As far as powering cars, using electric from a grid supplied by Thorium power would work. There was actually a Slashdot article about Cadillac producing a Thorium powered prototype car that would not need refueling for 100k miles. They designed it to run on 8 grams of Thorium. It is not yet a workable design due to neutron flux dampening limitations on current materials that would encase the reactor. Investment similar to the investments that we underwent during the Manhattan project (23 billion in today's dollars) would probably be able to solve this problem through the development of highly engineered containment materials that are sufficiently lite and non-bulky with long enough working life. Thorium Power Articles.
dbill: I want to take a few moments to respond. The first full scale LFTR Reactor will come online next year. It is going to be a fully function 500MWe reactor. It is located in India. Six more will follow in the few years after that are for commercial use. It is a cheap nuclear solution because of it's inherent safety. It is also a cheap solution because if it is used to convert the coal fire plants, it actually extends the life of those plants. I will point you to my latest article posting which I am hoping slashdot will also run. India's First Full Scale Reactor
As pointed out in the article, the coal industry has made huge amounts of money from Oil, gas, and plastics production. It can not make that kind of money from Thorium because unlike conventional nuclear reactors, there isn't a lot of money to be made in maintenance of the LFTR reactors. It's an almost set and forget design compared with conventional reactors and the fuel is so power dense it doesn't make money from mining it either. Four guys with shovels can unearth enough Thorium from the Thorium rich deposits to provide the energy needs of the US for a day. It doesn't have the huge long term money making machine that other energy sources have. It extends the life from 25 to 80 years for existing coal fire plants. Perhaps even out to 100 years by some estimates. That's a life multiplication of 3 times or 4 times. In the long run it is actually cheaper than oil. Ulterior Motives.
What PR agency are you referring to? I have worked out the numbers. I have done thorough research on the subject. PR doesn't fall into this equation. Please back up your PR statement with some facts. To see my facts please go to http://rawcell.com I have diligently laid out my case for the conversion of the coal fire plants to LFTR reactors. If you find a problem with my math or logic, then please spell it out. Don't just make blatantly vague statements with no support of facts. If you have a site where you have laid out your facts, then point me there.
LFTR Reactors don't heat houses? So coal fire plants don't heat houses? Several plans for powering ships with LFTR reactors have been made. Same with trains. Don't support decreased load on system? Can you give me any scientific numbers? You are wrong! This isn't a conventional nuclear solution. They dynamics are totally different!
Convert all coal fire plants to LFTR Nuclear reactors. It will end up being as cheap as coal, even cheaper in the long run when you account for longevity of the converted plants which will increase the age from 25 years to 80 years. Stop worrying so much about feeling bad over whether its man mad or not, really who cares, the fact is as a species we should care about what makes our species have the most prosperous environment to live in. Forget for a moment about every other species on the planet. Let's be selfish, worry about us. Convert the plants to LFTR reactors get 1000 years of the most power dense, low waste solution while we have it available. Doesn't pollute large areas of land (one mountain pass has enough Thorium to last us 1000 years at 100% of US consumption for everything...every last Watt we use! Has less than.01 % waste that only lasts for 300 years and it consumes the long term waste at the same time. The power density of Thorium is a 1,000,000...thats 1 million times the power density of coal. It has none of the draw backs of other alternate energies and the nuclear reactors made with liquid salts can NOT melt down...That is no Fukushima, NO Chernobyl No Three Mile Island. IT is in no way possible with these reactors. It is a clean solution and doesn't pollute and like other alternative energies it works 24 hours a day. I have even worked out a method to pay for it, that only has a 1 year investment associated with it. COAL to LFTR
Slashdot Mirror
You should read my articles before you point me out for not reading yours. The reason I didn't read your article is it keeps crashing my chrome browser. Also as far as algae, I said nothing about algae, I posed it as a question. It is interesting about algae being able to use any type of water but is it a viable solution right now? Why are we not using it? In the case of LFTR reactors they are not being used today because of the reasons I outlined here: Ulterior Motives. I would be interested in seeing more about the algae solution. Is it being tested? Is it actually producing fuel? What's the power density of the fuel? The CO2 output of the fuel per gallon? Please re-post your your well thought out document in HTML please so I can read it. You stated, "Recycling plastics waste does not make money. Also, where do you think the carbon in algae comes from, the moon?" You are wrong plastic waste recycling can supply us with 74 billion dollars per year in gas at today's prices ( By the way no one is paying me to promote this solution.) With the cost of recycling in USA we would earn 147.16 billion in 10 years. That assumes a life time of the recycling plants of 10 years which is an extremely conservative estimate and is probably closer to 30 years. You said, "There are many technical hurdles between now and a future in which such a reactor would be a suitable replacement for transportation fuel. " Those hurdles are no greater than the hurdles that the US undertook in creating an atomic bomb, or in landing on the moon. With a Manhattan style project which originally took 4 years in the 1940's we could overcome the technical hurdles. Also it isn't a LFTR type of Thorium reactor, but India will have their first 500 MWe plant running in 2013! Six more will follow in the next few years that are meant for commercial use. If India can do it then why can't the US do it? You said, "If you use beats, you will also need lyrics." Very witty, it seems you pay more attention to spelling than substance. I would suggest you read my articles before you judge them as being wrong unlike your article it doesn't crash ones browser to read. (By the way I wouldn't point this out except your being so nasty.) I include all the math necessary to come to my conclusions in my article. I guess it's easier to point out spelling mistakes than it is to read a mathematical analysis of substance. Generation IV reactors can provide the whole US economy with an energy solution for 1000 years. That's every last Watt of power. Can algae do the same? By the way nothing in my first statement statement indicated that there was a reason to not use algae as a solution. On the contrary I feel we should use almost all forms of alternative energy sources. With the exclusion of the use of ethanol. I didn't bother pointing out that your document crashes my browser, I guess I should have pointed that out originally but I assumed it was my browser that had the problem and just posed the questions instead.
I would be interested in seeing more about fuel from algae, as for corn based, I know it is not a good thing. It makes no sense and under no circumstance will it ever become a viable solution. It's good to see that this uses otherwise wasted land, but can it be scaled. If they could find a plant species to use that would grow in land that has no vegetation whatsoever like maybe desert. Then it might make sense. But you would still have the problem with supplying it with water which is becoming ever an increasing precious substance. What's the difference using beats in this respect? I venture none. As for algae, doesn't one run into the same problem, what's the difference? Anyone? Let's invest as heavily in Air Carbon Capture by recycling plastics waste to pay for it and in development of generation IV nuclear reactors based on methods that don't use lot's of Uranium (as in non spent Uranium. Spent Uranium is O.K. since those types of reactors get rid of the long term waste. If we invested in generation IV nuclear reactors, we could convert all our coal plants for 1.6 Trillion in capital cost..
Soul Powered. The apple followers put their heart and soul into following Apple. It's good to see that Apple is doing something with their money that is worth while. Google is doing a lot of the same. I am sure it's because it's good PR but I certainly like to hear about it. I just wish that Apple and Google would invest in building a network of Air Carbon Capture devices. Funding the Air Carbon Capture with the profits made from building a network of plastic recycling units. We waste 37,000,000 tons of plastic each year that can be turned into millions of gallons of fuel and sold for a huge profit.
We need to use only 0 emissions energy in the US, We need to implement only new generation IV nuclear reactors, Wind, Solar, we must convert ALL Coal fire plants from to safe LFTR reactors (1.6 Trillion in capital cost) [rawcell.com], we must recycle all plastic wastes (for the environment sake) and make money at it and produce the fuel for our cars at the same time and increase dramatically the fuel efficiency of the vehicles coming off the assembly line( not impossible we can improve it, we have done it with test vehicles), and we must Institute a System of Air Carbon Capture. We can do this with the money made from recycling. We waste 37 million tons of plastic each year in the US ALONE. Worldwide the numbers are huge. That doesn't even get into the fact that sorting out the plastic pays a large portion of the sorting costs of the rest of the trash which can also be recycled. The world produces 500,000,000 tons of waste each year. A large portion of which is plastics. Recycling Waste Can Pay for Air Carbon Capture and for LFTR Capital Conversion Costs! This money would help with the research and development associated with other energy solutions. It would Cost 1.6 Trillion to convert all Coal fire plants to LFTR reactors. I have crunched the numbers. India Will Have its' First 500 MW Thorium Reactor Next Year. With a Manhattan style project we would be able to solve the problems with Thorium reactors in probably less time than it took to do the Manhattan project (4 years) for less than the 23 billion it would take in today's dollars for that project to be completed. The remaining problem with Thorium reactors is the material for the inner containers, and several solutions have been proposed including replacement modules like car oil filters. After that we should FREELY export our technology to the world which benefits us as well as other nations or as trade for debt to other countries.
We need to use only 0 emissions energy in the US, We need to implement only new generation IV nuclear reactors, Wind, Solar, we must convert ALL Coal fire plants from to safe LFTR reactors (1.6 Trillion in capital cost), we must recycle all plastic wastes (for the environment sake) and make money at it and produce the fuel for our cars at the same time and increase dramatically the fuel efficiency of the vehicles coming off the assembly line( not impossible we can improve it, we have done it with test vehicles), and we must Institute a System of Air Carbon Capture. We can do this with the money made from recycling. We waste 37 million tons of plastic each year in the US ALONE. Worldwide the numbers are huge. That doesn't even get into the fact that sorting out the plastic pays a large portion of the sorting costs of the rest of the trash which can also be recycled. The world produces 500,000,000 tons of waste each year. A large portion of which is plastics. Recycling Waste Can Pay for Air Carbon Capture and for LFTR Capital Conversion Costs! This money would help with the research and development associated with other energy solutions. It would Cost 1.6 Trillion to convert all Coal fire plants to LFTR reactors. I have crunched the numbers. India Will Have its' First 500 MW Thorium Reactor Next Year. With a Manhattan style project we would be able to solve the problems with Thorium reactors in probably less time than it took to do the Manhattan project (4 years) for less than the 23 billion it would take in today's dollars for that project to be completed. The remaining problem with Thorium reactors is the material for the inner containers, and several solutions have been proposed including replacement modules like car oil filters. After that we should FREELY export our technology to the world which benefits us as well as other nations or as trade for debt to other countries.
We have been polluting the water ever since the industrial age began and draining the water supply at the same time. Aquifers are getting depleted, its going to become an expensive problem. It is good to see this technology finally come about . It should help us bring water to arid lands. They say that with global warming it isn't the heat that is going to affect the plant life but the lack of water supply. It is an expensive proposition however to lay thousands of miles of pipe. But perhaps it will become cheap enough to take and desalinate water and fill up major rivers so that natural distribution can be restored. It would take a lot of energy to do it but with the two orders of magnitude cheaper maybe it would be cost effective? I would also suggest that we stop polluting the water with all the plastics and use it to recycle. We produce 37,000,000 tons of plastic each year that ends up in landfills and in the water. We could convert this into fuel energy. I have done a cost analysis on the energy from plastic recycling.
It reminds me of the Dr. House episode where everyone on the plane develops symptoms because a person comes down with a sickness. In the case of House the person had been scuba diving but they thought it was meningitis. So everyone started developing weird symptoms. This problem has been perpetuated by people that are against any solution that doesn't agree with what they want. The same thing happened with LFTR reactors back in 1942 when they were first suggested and continued later on when nuclear was given a bad name due to the poor technological nuclear solutions selected. If it wasn't for interest groups we would have no nuclear melt downs. No global warming and we would have abundant energy. We can still produce this energy solution for relatively cheap. It isn't too late! I even have a way to pay for the energy solution!
It is also possible to operate without beryllium fluoride in the salt. It is possible to operate on lithium fluoride-thorium fluoride eutectic without beryllium, as the French LFTR design, the "TMSR", has chosen. Also as far as Zirconium, LFTR's create Zirconium during their burning process as a byproduct. Fission of 1000 kg U-233 produces several chemicals essential for industry, readily extracted from a LFTR, including 150kg xenon, 125kg neodymium (high-strength magnets), 20kg medical molybdenum-99, 20kg radiostrontium, zirconium, rhodium, ruthenium, and palladium. Don't take my word for it. There is NO shortage of natural resources. Sufficient other natural resources such as beryllium, lithium, nickel and molybdenum are available to build thousands of LFTRs. see Wikipedia. http://rawcell.com
I responded to this but don't know what happened to the response I posted. So here it is again. Workable designs for trains, houses, and ships have been done. They simply bury a preset amount of liquid salts in containers sixty feet bellow ground in sealed containers. There are companies working on just such designs that I have read about. As far as powering cars, using electric from a grid supplied by Thorium power would work. There was actually a Slashdot article about Cadillac producing a Thorium powered prototype car that would not need refueling for 100k miles. They designed it to run on 8 grams of Thorium. It is not yet a workable design due to neutron flux dampening limitations on current materials that would encase the reactor. Investment similar to the investments that we underwent during the Manhattan project (23 billion in today's dollars) would probably be able to solve this problem through the development of highly engineered containment materials that are sufficiently lite and non-bulky with long enough working life. Thorium Power Articles.
dbill: I want to take a few moments to respond. The first full scale LFTR Reactor will come online next year. It is going to be a fully function 500MWe reactor. It is located in India. Six more will follow in the few years after that are for commercial use. It is a cheap nuclear solution because of it's inherent safety. It is also a cheap solution because if it is used to convert the coal fire plants, it actually extends the life of those plants. I will point you to my latest article posting which I am hoping slashdot will also run. India's First Full Scale Reactor
As pointed out in the article, the coal industry has made huge amounts of money from Oil, gas, and plastics production. It can not make that kind of money from Thorium because unlike conventional nuclear reactors, there isn't a lot of money to be made in maintenance of the LFTR reactors. It's an almost set and forget design compared with conventional reactors and the fuel is so power dense it doesn't make money from mining it either. Four guys with shovels can unearth enough Thorium from the Thorium rich deposits to provide the energy needs of the US for a day. It doesn't have the huge long term money making machine that other energy sources have. It extends the life from 25 to 80 years for existing coal fire plants. Perhaps even out to 100 years by some estimates. That's a life multiplication of 3 times or 4 times. In the long run it is actually cheaper than oil. Ulterior Motives.
What PR agency are you referring to? I have worked out the numbers. I have done thorough research on the subject. PR doesn't fall into this equation. Please back up your PR statement with some facts. To see my facts please go to http://rawcell.com I have diligently laid out my case for the conversion of the coal fire plants to LFTR reactors. If you find a problem with my math or logic, then please spell it out. Don't just make blatantly vague statements with no support of facts. If you have a site where you have laid out your facts, then point me there.
LFTR Reactors don't heat houses? So coal fire plants don't heat houses? Several plans for powering ships with LFTR reactors have been made. Same with trains. Don't support decreased load on system? Can you give me any scientific numbers? You are wrong! This isn't a conventional nuclear solution. They dynamics are totally different!
Convert all coal fire plants to LFTR Nuclear reactors. It will end up being as cheap as coal, even cheaper in the long run when you account for longevity of the converted plants which will increase the age from 25 years to 80 years. Stop worrying so much about feeling bad over whether its man mad or not, really who cares, the fact is as a species we should care about what makes our species have the most prosperous environment to live in. Forget for a moment about every other species on the planet. Let's be selfish, worry about us. Convert the plants to LFTR reactors get 1000 years of the most power dense, low waste solution while we have it available. Doesn't pollute large areas of land (one mountain pass has enough Thorium to last us 1000 years at 100% of US consumption for everything...every last Watt we use! Has less than .01 % waste that only lasts for 300 years and it consumes the long term waste at the same time. The power density of Thorium is a 1,000,000 ...thats 1 million times the power density of coal. It has none of the draw backs of other alternate energies and the nuclear reactors made with liquid salts can NOT melt down...That is no Fukushima, NO Chernobyl No Three Mile Island. IT is in no way possible with these reactors. It is a clean solution and doesn't pollute and like other alternative energies it works 24 hours a day. I have even worked out a method to pay for it, that only has a 1 year investment associated with it. COAL to LFTR