## Saturday, June 1, 2013

### More on Sabatier Reaction

This website gives some useful calculations for a Mars mission.

I figured out about how much methane/lox could be produced ( in theory ) from the plutonium energy source on the Curiosity rover.  Assuming no errors, which could be a bit optimistic, I came up with 2852 kgs of reaction mass per Earth year.  A brief guess indicates this wouldn't be nearly enough to get a capsule back into Mars orbit.

Since plutonium can last for a long time, it could run for several years as long as there were no malfunctions.

Now, back on Earth, the amount of methane that can be produced from carbon dioxide might be calculated assuming that the reactor had 10 megawatts of thermal energy.

I assumed 100 watts from the rover.  Ten megawatts is ten million watts.  It can produce theoretically 100k times more methane lox.  But you won't need the lox on Earth.  Looks like 57 million kgs or 57k metric tons of methane, or more since you don't need to produce the lox.

The significance of this I have not be figured out yet.

Update:

Double checking this math.

Here's the equation that is of particular interest in the case of the LFTR:

CO2 (g) + 2H2 (g) <-----> CH4 (g) + O2 (g)         delta H = +318.6 kJ        (4)
Since this is not for a Mars liftoff, we aren't particularly interested in making the liquid oxygen.  That part of the discussion can be dropped.  This saves considerable energy, by the way.

A kilojoule is 100,000  typo! make that 1000 joules.  There are 3.6 million joules in a kilowatt-hr.

So, every kilowatt hr has 3.6 million joules divided by 318,600 joules per reaction giving 11.3 reactions per kwh.  That would yield  11.3  reactions times 16 grams per reaction  giving 181 grams of methane per hour.  Multiplying that by 24 hours in a day gives 4339 grams per day or 4.34 kgs.  Multiply that by 365 days giving 1584 kgs.  That's considerably less than before.  Probably made a mistake.  A ten megawatt LFTR is equivalent to 10,000 kwh, so multiply this by 10,000 giving 15,837,288 kgs!  Divide by 1000 gives metric tons which is 15837 metric tons.  Looks like a significant discrepancy, but still quite a bit of methane.  These may be ideal numbers, which we won't account for inefficiencies.  But we'll overlook that for now.

What made me want to recheck these numbers is the market value of methane.  How much would this amount of methane be worth?

This chart quotes price in thousands of cubic feet of LNG , which would be at the most recent date of 7.82.

This chart does the conversions from metric tons to cubic feet.

1 metric ton liquefied natural gas (LNG) = 48,700 cubic feet of natural gas

Then we multiply   15837 metric tons derived above times 48700 giving  771275932 cubic feet.  Divide this by 1000 since that how the price is quoted and this gives 771275 units which sell for 7.82 per thousand cubic feet.  So multiply this by 7.82 and this gives \$6,031,378 worth of methane.

The cost of the carbon dioxide is 8 bucks a ton.  Add 10% for a metric ton.  Say 9 bucks a metric ton.

You lose mass in the reaction.  In order to produce 15,837 metric tons of methane, we will need 391,966 dollars worth of carbon dioxide.  That's because each ton of methane takes 2.75 tons of carbon dioxide.  The atomic weight of methane is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44.  The ratio is multiplied by the methane output giving the required carbon dioxide and multiply that by 9 bucks per metric ton.

Looks like room for profit.

Perhaps I will look at this again in order to see if there are no mistakes.

Update:

I can't see any mistakes.  Not like there couldn't be, but I don't see any thus far.

Taking the analysis a bit further, if Thorium is really cheaper than coal, then it should be able to produce the energy for 4 cents per kwh.  At that price, this system could produce methane at a competitive price.

### CoolPlanet_CarbonNegativeFuelCycle

Published on Feb 28, 2013 Cool Planet explains the Carbon Negative Fuel Cycle.

Comment:

I didn't rip off their idea. This looks like what I wrote last fall. No biggie, though.  A coincidence.

### Windmill energy to methane

Found this on Wikipedia under the Sabatier reaction. ( see footnote 13)

This may contradict some of what I said about wind and solar.  But nuclear is still cheaper, as Hargraves shows.

If energy is cheaper than coal, it can produce methane cheaper too.

### Why all the emphasis on nuclear power?

One simple reason:  for civilization to continue as it is, or to advance our civilization to a higher level, nuclear power is the only way.

Environmentalists like to talk about renewable energy.  Actually, there's no such thing.  Energy cannot be renewed.  Once it's spent, it's gone forever.  In the long run, we are all dead, as Mr. Keynes once famously said.  That includes the sun, the earth, the universe.  Nothing is forever.

But, I'm not here to depress anyone.  For if I really wanted to do that, I'd take up the environmentalist notions of renewables.  No, we have a certain amount of time that is going to be available to us.  What we do with that time is our choice.  If we are to make intelligent choices, we need to be informed about our options.

We can choose to go back to nature.  But that will have consequences.  For to go back to nature must mean what it meant before.  That is to say, what existed before the Industrial Revolution and the invention of agriculture.  A hunter-gatherer type existence can only support a few people.  If you go back to that existence, you will have to give up your conveniences and probably for most people, even their own lives.  There's just not enough for everybody to live like a caveman.

But wait.  What about a super advanced society?  I would agree that a super advanced society could actually support people going back to rough it for awhile.  You already have something like that.  This "back to nature" stuff is a lot like that.  But it isn't for real.  We can only do this back to nature stuff because we have an advanced society.  If we give up our advanced society, these things will not become diversions, but necessities.

A lot of this "back to nature" stuff comes from the notion that we can go back permanently.  Yes, that could be arranged, but I can almost guarantee that the people advocating it won't like it if it means that they will most likely die because of it.

I mean, look here folks.  The die is already cast.  Because we have prospered and multiplied on the face of this planet, we are pretty much stuck with things as they are.  Going back is not a viable option.  We can't give up fossil fuels and nuclear power.  We could give up fossil fuels in favor of nuclear power, but we can't give it all up.  For if we do, we will soon encounter an inconvenient truth about our situation.

Our situation is that we are totally dependent upon this fossil fuel as an energy source.  Without it, we don't have modern agriculture.  Without modern agriculture, how do you feed 300 million people?  That's not even counting the rest of the people on this planet.  Sure, you could try to go back to farming.  But people have forgotten how to farm.  Even if they knew how, there aren't enough farm animals to support them.  For if you don't have machines and the fossil fuels that run them, you will have to use farm animals.

Even if you had the farm animals, you don't have enough land.  For it would take as much as 1/3 of the land to feed the farm animals.  And 300 million people are a lot of mouths to feed.  Going back to the 19th century isn't feasible unless there's a massive die off.

Okay, that may be a good enough case to convince you that we need fossil fuels.  But fossil fuels aren't going to be enough either.  We are using up our fossil fuels faster than it can be replaced.  The "renewables" crowd will say that I've just made their point.  Wrong.  My point is not in defense of fossil fuels, which are too limited for our circumstances.  We are going to need nuclear energy.

Don't get started on wind and solar.  Not only can they not compete with fossil energy, they will never compete.  They will have to be several times cheaper than fossil in order to make up for their intermittent quality.  Wind and solar are illusions masquerading as solutions.  The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, but you always need energy.

In the long run, not even fossil is good enough.  It cannot be replaced.  That leaves nuclear by process of elimination.

You may not like nuclear.  It may scare you.  The radiation can kill you.  It can cause cancers or so forth.

Yes it can.  But a fire can kill you too.  Electricity can kill you.  Any energy source can kill you.  You can fall from a high place, and the kinetic energy of your fall will kill you.  Energy must be respected, like all forms of power.  But it need not be feared beyond all proportions of reason and good sense.

But that's what we have today.  Radiation is feared beyond all proportion to its actual risk.  But this is not to diminish or play down the real risks.  But keep in mind that fossil fuels are necessary for our very survival and are going to run out someday.  That day may not be near, but it will happen someday.

Eventually, we have to accept nuclear.

One last thing.  And advanced society needs kinetic energy.  After all, where does electricity come from?  You spin a device in magnetic field and that make electricity.  It is by no means the only way, but it is the most common way.  Note that to spin the device requires kinetic energy:  that is to say, it needs to move, and likely move pretty fast.  Without the kinetic energy driving the generators, we have no electricity.  In general, without kinetic energy, we are dead in the water.  As I've indicated, we are also dead ducks.

It takes energy to move a car.  Or a machine.  Kinetic energy for the most part is what is being generated.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared.  When you square a number, it gets big fast.  Move something twice as fast and you need four times as much energy.  Ten times as fast means 100 times as much energy and so forth.  The numbers get big fast.  The energy requirements get big pretty fast.  Chemical energy cannot supply that kind of energy for long.  But it is supplying it for the moment because there was a lot of it.  It is getting more and more scarce all the time.

We could slow down of course.  But that would mean consequences that I've just described above.  Conservation doesn't make energy.  We need energy and a lot of it.

Einstein's famous equation E=mc squared looks a lot like the equation for kinetic energy.  That's because it is, in a sense.  You've got a speed limit for the universe which is the speed of light.  The velocity of light is a velocity.  A slower number just means less energy.

Chemical energy is measured in electon volts.  Nuclear energy is measured in millions of electron volts.  No one needs too much explanation that nuclear energy is more powerful.  What may not be clear is that we need it.  When you look at the dependence upon kinetic energy in a modern society, then maybe it will become more clear.  It did for me.  I hope anyone reading this can see the point.  I don't know if I made it well enough.

At least I tried.

Nuclear energy really isn't an option.  At some point, it is going to become a matter of survival.

### This is embarrassing

Back in 2010, I gave some money to his opponent in order to try to beat this guy.  His opponent is a rocket scientist.  Ruth McClung could do a lot better than this.  Maybe I should have hocked the family jewels.  What a lame presentation.

Compare and contrast this with Kirk Sorensen's presentation.  Sure, it doesn't have all that much to do with Keystone, but the same mentality opposes nuclear.  Sorry to put it that way, but this lame presentation speaks for itself.  It's a comic performance, although I'm sure he didn't intend it to be so.

By the way, he says he's not a scientist.  Gee, I would never have known.

They'll probably call it racist to make fun of this rube, but the only reason this guy is in office is his skin color.  If this doesn't prove it, nothing can.

### Stuff They Don't Want You To Know - Phantom Time

Can the calendar be wrong?  If it is, why?

Ace has a post that discusses the Year Without Summer.  He also mentions how the media isn't discussing a similar event in Europe these days.  We sure seem to see our share of media blackouts of newsworthy events.  No doubt that if they don't want you to know something, they will keep it away from you.

The media is in lockstep with the political left in this country.

I mention this in connection with the post that was critical of the LFTR.  The author claimed that the advocates of Thorium Energy don't want you to see his post.  Not so.  I think it is the other way around.  I get the impression that they are trying to scare people, not to reason with them.  Reasoning requires a higher order faculty that isn't available to us when we are scared.

I think the same people who push for carbon taxes and solar and wind are just Luddites and Malthusians.  They are Luddites in the sense that they don't trust technological progress.  They are Malthusians because they believe that we can't supply our own needs with improvements in technology.  I have noted that on this blog.  But we have been keeping ahead of starvation for centuries since Malthus came up with his theory.  And technological progress improved the lot of mankind even if certain industries were made obsolete.

Otherwise, when the left isn't interested in these scare tactics, they are just interested in the taxes and the power that it gives them to do social engineering.

The idea that carbon dioxide can be beneficial is just not acceptable to them.  Their narrative can't support it.

My view is that we don't have to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere if we don't have to.  With the LFTR, we won't have to.  If you believe that carbon dioxide is harmful, this can be a cure for that problem.  Even if you don't believe it, it can solve other problems that we have.  Like our economy and energy security.

### Fastest way to LFTR adoption

It may be finding a way to make hydrogen cheaply and efficiently.  Why?

Let's skip trying to go all out and get completely carbon-free for the now.  Let's take carbon that is intended for sequestration and combine it with the hydrogen produced by the LFTR.  You can make methane and then methanol.  Methanol can be shipped to refineries that can make gasoline out of it.  Exxon-Mobil has a process that does this.

So, basically you use an existing carbon source and add to it a new process to make hydrogen.  Make methanol and ship it. You've a product that can mitigate carbon production, but not eliminate it outright. I'm guessing that all this could be done for less than a billion dollars for a pilot plant.

The goal would have to be methanol that is competitively priced.

Hargraves says that methane gas is the cheapest energy per kilowatt-hour. Let's say you take from natural sources and burn it. Capture the carbon dioxide and make methanol out of it for gasoline production by using the LFTR. This would be the cheapest form of carbon plus the already low cost of energy from the LFTR. You would avoid power production for the grid. Instead it would go for the plant. If successful, you could scale it up later.

The fundamental ideas are to burn up nuclear wastes, reduce carbon, and produce a salable product in the most cost efficient and fastest manner possible.  The key technologies are the LFTR and hydrogen production from the LFTR.  The LFTR and hydrogen production have been proven in the lab.  You just need to scale it up.

### The Optical Illusions Compilation - 2013

I did the last exercise at the end of the video.  Weird!!!

The first frame shown below is, um, interesting.

### The Real Reason Millennials Don't Buy Cars and Homes | The Exchange - Yahoo! Finance

I found this link to share with you.

Personal message:
The real reason they don't buy cars and homes is that they don't have jobs and they don't have money. Duh.  The leadership, if it can be call thus, is failing them miserably.
The Real Reason Millennials Don't Buy Cars and Homes | The Exchange - Yahoo! Finance
 http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/real-reason-millennials-don-t-buy-cars-homes-153340750.html They're narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered. And addicted to their four-inch screens. If you believe the conventional wisdom about the millennial generation — those 16 to 34 years of age, by most calculations — you've got considerable reason to worry about the … Continue reading →

### Finished Hargraves' book, part 3

After thinking it over, the fastest route towards solving the liquid fuels problem would be to find an efficient means of using nuclear energy to split water for hydrogen.

You could use thermal decomposition or some other process that Hargraves discusses.

According to Hargraves, Thorium is Cheaper than Coal.  In my opinion, you don't have to be that ambitious because the liquid fuels now being used for automobiles and so forth, are too expensive as it is.  If you can replace those with hydrogen fuel cells that can compete on price in terms of the fuel itself and the power plant for the auto, you are in business.

In my opinion, the production of methane may be the quickest way if you can solve the water cracking problem.  According to Hargraves, this has been done in the lab, so all you need to do is to scale it up.

The simplest processes may be to use the Sabatier process with the hydrogen thus produced, as well as a carbon dioxide source.  I've covered a way to produce the carbon dioxide.  Once again, it can be baked out of the calcium carbonate that makes up limestone.  The calcium oxide can be combined with water to make slaked lime which will absorb the carbon dioxide out of the air.  Thus, it can be carbon neutral and requires no extra mining for limestone once the process has been established.

Now, once you have your carbon source and your hydrogen source, the Sabatier process can make methane.  Ship that methane to distribution points.   At the point of sale, the hydrogen can be stripped off, which will leave carbon dioxide and hydrogen again.  The carbon dioxide, which is carbon neutral, can be released into the atmosphere.  The hydrogen can be cryogenically stored and sold to the consumer on location.

According to Aronsson, as I have reported here on this blog, the price for fuel cells is competitive now.  Once solving the hydrogen transport problem with methane, and the fuel cell cost problem with Aronsson's fuel cells, a system that could replace fossil fuels could be put into place.  We are fairly close to that point today.  All we need is just a little more research and we are there.

I recommend the book.

## Friday, May 31, 2013

### What the pro-nuclear activists are up against

These people can sound so reasonable and persuasive.  Many people can be and will be taken in by it.

Why link to them, then?  Why even bother with them?

Because you are going to have to do battle against them.  I'd say the odds of beating them are not very good.  They've got the media, the "educational" system, and most of the political system.  As for the opposition to them in Congress, what opposition?

Actually, those guys are trying to talk the language of the left in order to gain their support.  Good luck with that.

It may not get too far with the so-called right, either.

That pretty much sums it up right there.

Update:

Actually, from what I've seen of the anti-nuke arguments, there hasn't been any good ones. But this may be an exception. One bit of warning about it, though. The kind of argument that you can expect from the left---there's a lot of ad hominem attacks in this. Actually, I'd like to see an objective anti-nuke that isn't larded with political commentary. Unfortunately, this one is not innocent of that, but it does at least make an attempt at a technical critique.

Update:

I had to update this once again.  I stopped reading at the summary or conclusion part.  So, I went back and found something that I can't let go by.  He is trying to say that the LFTR won't be any more cleaner than LWRs because it will probably not be as efficient.  I find that to be a bit of a stretch to put it mildly.  The Thorium guys have to be off by a mile for that to be close to being true.  Since Weinberg liked it better than the LWR that he invented himself, I figure the Molten-Salt reactor can't be too bad.

### Smart scare crow on the "one that got away"

I was looking for something on nuclear cement, and I came across this smartscarecrow show, which featured thorium.

It looks like he couldn't use the video he wanted to use, but he did get the guy who made it to come on his show and be interviewed.  Here's the beginning of the segment here.

The video has been shown on this blog before.  I'd like to mention it here in context with the negativity towards nuclear energy that he covered on the video somewhere around at this point in it.  It is a total rejection of not only nuclear, but every technology that has been invented.  This is a rather extreme position, which if it takes hold, will lead to a permanent lowering of the standard of living.  They won't tell you this, but are instead trying to push the idea that wind and solar can take the place of fossil and nuclear.

I once wrote that the real dream, as you might say to someone who is unrealistic, is not thorium.  The real dream is the ones who are pushing so-called renewables.  But that is how things are today.  The one thing that is REALISTIC is a dream.  The thing that is a DREAM isn't realistic.

### Water splitting from nuclear thermal energy

Given the potential of the very high heat levels from certain types of reactors, such as LFTRs, it may well be feasible to use such heat to produce hydrogen directly.

But even if you can do this economically, you still must find a way to transport it.  You could produce ammonia, but that has its hazards.

That brings me back to my proposition and make this post x+3 in the series.  ( x+2 was the last post)

It would be a way in the system that I propose to produce the ammonia without using a biological nor petroleum feedstocks.  Just use the ammonia in the solvay process to produce soda ash, and from there back to ammonium carbonate.

### David LeBlanc - Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook @ TEAC4

LeBlanc's ideas can be used to burn existing radioactive wastes, according to Hargraves.

### Hargraves book, part 2

I smell a new series in the works.  I'm really beginning to like this book because it is a fertile source of new ideas.

For example, Weinberg's group produced a reactor for the Aircraft Reactor Experiment, which was called the "Fireball".  The key feature of the Fireball was its ability to run really hot.  Hot enough to run jet engines which could use atmospheric air as a reaction mass.  According to the text, this was about 850 degrees Centigrade.

This gives me some ideas about kilns, which I propose to use to make calcium oxide from calcium carbonate.  It so happens that this process requires heat at fairly close to this temperature.  Now, if you were to make use of this heat from a Fireball, you can make the calcium oxide.

That's one idea.  There are others that have nothing to do with kilns.

Now, as far as kilns are concerned, the production of quick lime ( calcium oxide ), can proceed in the most energy efficient manner as possible.  We should want this in order to minimize the cost of the quicklime.

The ammonia needed for the fuel cells can be produced directly by combining soda ash with quicklime.  But that is an alternative.  In any case, you are still producing useful products.  Or you can just recycle it indefinitely with ammonium carbonate and quicklime.  This will get you back to limestone and that can be shipped back to the Fireball and recycled.

You can tie the production of quicklime into the production of ammonium carbonate.  I described this process before as a way to make a closed loop system for the safe and economical transport of hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells.  Now this series doesn't have to be a new series, ( but it germinate a new one anyway) it can be linked to the existing series on the outputs of the proposed system.  Called this x+2 of the series of posts.  X+1 was here.

### The Quantitative Beatings will Continue Until Economy Improves

kitco commentary by Keith Weiner

comment:

A couple things here to contemplate

First, there has been a long-term trend downward in interest rates.  While this was welcome when rates were relatively high, this is now becoming a problem as it tends towards zero.

Secondly, the low interest rate punishes savers and the economy as a whole.  The article explains how.  He explains that investment is no longer for growth, it becomes a churning phenomenon and thus becomes zero sum.  Now, I've read books about success and something I remember that stood out:  those who cannot save do not have within themselves the seed of success.  The Fed is literally punishing success.

The Federal Reserve is the problem.  We are trending towards and economy that punishes the thrifty and productive element.  The Fed is a large part of that problem.

## Thursday, May 30, 2013

### Hargraves book

As noted earlier, I bought the Kindle version of Hargraves book.

As I've been reading, I came across the topic of carbon sequestration.  Nobody asked me, so I'll give my opinion on that here.  I don't like the idea of sequestering carbon dioxide.  I put that into extra strong emphasis because the entire idea of putting a POISON in concentrated form which could ESCAPE into the environment is so STUPID as to be criminal.  As far as I'm concerned, anybody doing this ought to be put up against the wall and shot as a public menace.  Carbon sequestration in this manner is DANGEROUS.  Concentrated carbon dioxide will KILL YOU.  If you were to be unlucky enough to anywhere a leak developed in one of these places, you will DIE.

Okay, back to reading the book.  Just want to say that there are better ways to sequester carbon.  It should be done with biochar.

Update:

I'm sure Hargraves' intention is not to make green energy types feel bad.  He just presents his stuff as a matter of fact way with no editorial comment.  But, I don't see how the greenies can help feeling bad when they see, or read his presentations.  I can think of one example in a video, but I won't say where.  Probably because it isn't helpful.

Generally speaking, it isn't persuasive to make your audience feel like an idiot, even if it's the truth. Unfortunately, most people seem to have this weakness that allows their egos to be wrapped up in what they believe.  It becomes a part of themselves, so if you say anything that seems critical of that which they believe, even if it is just factual and not insulting, they may get hurt feelings because they perceive it is directed at them personally.

Sometimes this tactful stuff is a bit much to take.  If a thing really is stupid, it is better to just say so.

### Jiang Mianheng - Why Nuclear Power in China? Thorium & the Energy Outlo

China is doing it. Why aren't we?

# "No Warning Can Save People Determined To Grow Suddenly Rich"

### Byron York: Ted Cruz opens up on immigration | WashingtonExaminer.com

Byron York: Ted Cruz opens up on immigration | WashingtonExaminer.com

comment:

From the article, and from what I've read about concerning the Democrats strategy for 2014, the immigration bill is intended to be a partisan wedge issue.

In either case, for any Republicans to support this bill is absolute idiocy.  By joining with the Gang of Eight, Rubio should have disqualified himself from higher office as a member of the GOP.  But the GOP may not be smart enough to see it that way.

### In the year 2525

Some machine doing that for you.  According to the story at the link, a robot will predict your next action.  So, if the robot can predict that you will want some beer, it will pour your next drink for you.

I'm all for progress, but this isn't progress.

### I want you to see this purchase at Amazon.com

 Greg writes: Check out what I just bought.
THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal
by Robert Hargraves
 Kindle Price: \$9.99
Auto-delivered wirelessly

 Please note that product prices and availability are subject to change. Prices and availability were accurate at the time this e-mail was sent; however, they may differ from those you see when you visit Amazon.com. © 2011 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Amazon, Amazon.com, the Amazon.com logo, and 1-Click are registered trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. Amazon.com, 410 Terry Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109-5210.

### Robert Hargraves - Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal @ ThEC12

He has a book, and I think I will buy it.

Update:

He argues against carbon taxes.

### Win-Win solutions

In a way, this is another one of the Basic Concepts that I've been pushing on this blog.  I call it Solutions v. Conflict.  It seems all to often these days that the solution seems to be to bludgeon the other guy.  I suggest another way, a better way:  to get his cooperation instead.

President Harry Truman was once quoted to have said something to the effect that leadership is not only getting the other guy to do something, but also to get him to like it.  He certainly won't like it if you bulldoze him.  But he might like it if you can show him how he can get what he wants while helping the rest of us with doing what needs to be done.

Now, if we can only get DC in on this.

### A vision for the future

Today's the day.  Today is the first of two days for the TEAC5 meeting in Chicago, Illinois.  I thought of going at the last minute, but decided to stay home for health reasons.

Now, it may be premature, but I think this is a solution for our energy problems.  The LFTR, that is.  But the main problem is overcoming resistance to this idea.

I had a short sales career.  One of the things you need to learn in order to be a good salesman is the ability to overcome objections.  I didn't stick around long enough to learn how,  but at least I know about it.  For instance, you might have a recollection of having a salesman ask you something like "what would it take"?  He's trying to learn what your objections are so that he can convince you to buy what he's selling.

So, I'm trying to sell you on the LFTR.

What would be an objection to LFTRs?  Well, there are probably a lot of them.  Let's try to anticipate a few, shall we?  The first one would be waste.  That has been covered in the videos pretty adequately, I think.  Just one more thing you might want to consider.  That's existing waste from existing nuclear reactors.  The LFTR can help with that.  If you don't do anything else with the LFTR, you could do that.  You can mitigate the existing nuclear waste problem.  How? A LFTR is going to need a neutron source to get it started.  The waste can provide that.  It could be the kindling wood, so to speak, to start up the LFTR.  Just keep feeding it the waste little by little and it is all burned up eventually.  You are left with a waste stream, sure, but it is much more manageable.  And as I mentioned, the LFTR guys have the rest figured out.

Three hundred years and the waste will be safe.  That's a huge improvement over what we've already got, isn't it?

The next big objection would be proliferation risks.  Once again, the LFTR guys have that figured out.  The LFTR is not a practical way to make the bomb.  Now, let's suppose you put the LFTR on an existing nuclear site.  That site is already being guarded with gates, guns, and guards.  Now the LFTR has but a small footprint.  You can put a 100 MW LFTR on an 18 wheeler.  So, it would be relatively easy to just bring one to an existing facility and have it guarded as well as the rest of the existing stuff is guarded.  In the meantime, you can use that LFTR to burn up the wastes that already exist.  In the end, your existing proliferation risk has been burn up and the remaining LFTR poses no threat.  You can do all this without entailing any greater risk than what already exists.

But what about meltdowns?  The LFTR is walk away safe.  It has passive safety features.  It will shut itself down automatically if something goes wrong.  It regulates itself.  There is no possibility of a runaway reaction.  Got it covered, just trust me on that.

But the LFTR doesn't even exist yet.  But it was proven in the lab over 40 years ago.  Perhaps the time hadn't come for it yet.  But the time has come today.  There's a crying need for something like this right now and it could exist within five years.

Still not convinced?  Well, what about cost?  Kirk Sorensen estimates that a prototype can be built for about as much as Solyndra's cost.  If the government can waste money on Solyndra, why not try this?

But you don't have to rely on government.  Plenty of opportunity to make money in an environmentally friendly way.  For not only can the LFTR burn up nuclear waste, it can produce with its nuclear energy vast quantities of environmentally friendly drop in fuels from biological sources.  Thus, we can clean up our air from the threat of excessive carbon dioxide build up.  How?

That part I got covered on this blog.  One example is to grow seaweed in the Gulf.  Harvest it.  Bring it to the South Texas Nuclear Project.  Use the LFTR to pyrolyze it into biochar and drop in biofuels.  Nothing new in the way of technology would have to be developed.  There's already a Canadian company which makes drop in biofuels from biological sources.  In the meantime, while you are burning up the nuclear wastes, you are also cleaning up the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

What's not to like?  But it gets even better.  With the biochar you've just produced, you can improve soils and sequester carbon for centuries.  You could draw down the carbon buildup in the atmosphere.

You could even produce clean water from seawater using this process.  It doesn't take much energy by the process I've written about here on this blog.   Just use the relatively hot water that is no longer steam, and use it for a low energy process that can produce potable water from seawater.  I covered that on this blog, too.

You could also produce a hydrogen source for fuel cells.  I've covered that on this blog too.  See the series about electric cars on the left sidebar, for more information.

The possibilities go on and on.  There's simply no reason why this can't be done.  There's no reason why it shouldn't be done.  Try to think of one.  Chances are, the LFTR guys have got it covered.

For more information about LFTR's, just click on the category label at the bottom of this post.

## Wednesday, May 29, 2013

### Boehner’s style: Why a weak Speaker is just what conservatives need

Boehner’s style: Why a weak Speaker is just what conservatives need

comment:

So "boner" is kinda limp?

### Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: The Only Thing I Care About Is Implementing ObamaCare

quote:
There have simply been too many times when the GOP/conservatives have not only tactically retreated but outright gone over to the liberal side. There's little to no trust for most elected Republicans. And for good reason.
comment:

Suicide again.  Why do they do this?

### What happened to Al Fin?

The blog hasn't been updated in months.  Nothing I can find gives a clue.

This reminds me of other blogs that suddenly stopped.  I've mentioned Bunker Mulligan, who used to comment on the old Boots and Oil blog in 2004.  Bunker Mulligan died in 2005.  Then there was the Energy Blog.  It had no posts for a long time.  Then he came back for awhile and mentioned an illness.  Then he disappeared.  His blog is still there, but hasn't been updated in years.

Hopefully, everything's all right with Al Fin.

### Next Big Future: Rossi, NASA and Low energy nuclear reactions and N...

Next Big Future: Rossi, NASA and Low energy nuclear reactions and N...: Rossi had a third party investigation of his hot ecat. They should have done flow calorimetry, but the tests they did show interesting resul...

quote:

There are rumors on the internet that Ampenergo (Rossi related company) has raised a lot of money.

comment:

The rumors come running.  Sorry, couldn't resist the phrase.  It's from a Hemingway book ---For Whom The Bell Tolls.

I analyzed this in my Armchair Physics posts.  There's nothing new here.

# The Green(back) Revolution: Why Tesla Is Just A Distraction

### What U.S. Housing Market Recovery? Percentage Of First-Time Home Buyers Falls Again

Free Republic

The media is propagandizing it.  Supposedly, there's a recovery, but there many signs out there that contradict that.

Why would there be first time home buyers?  There are no new jobs.  The jobs situation isn't even back to Bush era levels.

Hype has worked so well for them that that's all they've got left now.

### The Obama riddle

It's just so doggone hard to be Obama, says E. J. Dionne.  That reminds me of something that's kinda funny, but mostly likely won't be appreciated by his supporters, Dionne here.  I was thinking of the Blues Brothers singing the song "Stand by your man" in the movie.  It game me a bit of a tickle to my fancy, so I thought I'd try to re-write the lyrics to fit the idea that we are just so mean to Obama that we need to lighten up a bit on him.

I wish I could put this to music, it would be a hoot.  Alas, I'm not a musician.

Stand by me man  by Barak Obama

Sometimes it's hard to be Obama
Giving all your love to just me, man
But if you love me
Oh, be proud of me
After all, I'm just The One

Stand by me man
Give me a hand to cling to
And some good news to come to
When good news is hard to come by

Stand by me man
And tell the pubs you still love me
Stand by me man

Here's the video with the original music.

### Certain things may need explanation ( or maybe not )

Here's another post about the blog.  If you not a bot and actually read this blog, you may notice the category labels.  Some of these may need some explanation, which I think I did once in the case of "politics schmolitics".  But what about the "PHD (Vain attempt to do a think piece)" thingy?

It's kind of a combination of things.  PHD is meant as a self-deprecating joke.  It is short for "piled higher and deeper".  It is a dig at over-intellectualizing, which may be a case for certain people, like myself for instance.  This may be obvious, I don't know.  The "vain" part is more or less in the same vein, hah, hah.  So, it looks like I'm making fun at myself for being too smart for my own good.  But the part that may not be obvious is that all the self-deprecation is not completely sincere.  I have been rather arrogant at times.  I have been so doggone sure of myself.  So, this is just a reminder to myself not to get too cocky.  That's because I've been wrong about things in the past and I'm only acknowledging my fallibility.

But you may have figured that out already and I'm just being vain to think that you didn't.

### Obama intends to collapse US economy

Got this from the Barnhardt.biz site.

### Dog and Butterfly meaning

A few days ago, I posted a video by the rock band Heart called Dog and Butterfly.  What does that song mean?  I gave it some thought and then compared notes with some comments about the song on a website that discusses the meaning of songs such as this.

The song is complex in a way.  I wondered if I should even make the attempt to explain my own interpretation.  But here are some ideas.  One idea was that the chase was more fun than the fulfillment.  Another called it the ying yang thing.  One that came close to my idea of the meaning was that the song was about resignation of a sort.  You see, my idea of what the song means is an acceptance of limitations.

Without going too far into the song, it basically boils down to not trying to be what you aren't.  The dog isn't a butterfly, but it has to try because it is a dog.  It will chase the butterfly in its mad pursuit of the unattainability of it to fly, but this doesn't trouble the dog.  The dog enjoys being what it is, it "doesn't know why", but that doesn't matter to the dog.  The girl in the song is troubled by her disappointments, and the old man, who symbolizes wisdom, shows her the dog and butterfly.  She finds comfort in this, and shares it with others in her life.

Some people are troubled by the song.  Resignation like this is like giving up.  That may be true too.  There's a danger in giving up on a goal that is reachable.  We are not dogs.  We can perceive what dogs can't, but this comes at a price.  The wisdom is not in resignation for the sake of resignation, but acceptance of what is truly beyond our reach.  But this is not always clear.  The truth is a slippery thing.

Now, I'll segue into a larger topic.  This correlates with the idea of Limits to Growth.  You see, the left is enamored of this concept.  They want to impose upon the rest of us this idea that we can't grow forever.  In a way, they may be right.  But to give up now could be a path towards tragedy.  If we were to give up too soon, we may stop at the very doorstep of an assurance of plenty for all people.  If we stop, we may doom ourselves to the curse that has plagued us throughout history.  That is, wars over limited resources.

With respect to nuclear power, it is the one way to meet energy needs and more.  For radically abundant energy can lead to material abundance.  It's lack will result in material scarcity.  For many things become possible with abundant energy.  And many things will remain out of reach if we lack it.

Solar and wind can never match fossil fuels in terms of concentration of energy.  What the advocates of this path are not telling you is that you must accept scarcity to go along with it.  They will deceive you into thinking you can have your material abundance even with solar and wind.  But this will not be possible.

It is true that fossil fuels are limited.  It is also true that fission energy carries risks.  But to deny that power today will forever limit us tomorrow.  Is that really necessary?  That question needs to be answered honestly.

### Book Review: Men on Strike by Dr. Helen Smith

Book Review: Men on Strike by Dr. Helen Smith

comment:

The ideas mesh with Limbaugh's idea of the feminization of America.

The Futurist blog refers to it as misandry.

I've had my own thoughts on the matter, too.

## Tuesday, May 28, 2013

### Propaganda

Tesla gives clean tech hopes a rev | smh.com.au

How about mentioning that Bob Aaronsson has challenged Tesla to a cross country race?

### Another reason to favor molten-salt over light water reactors

Can't recall where I heard this, but it was an interview with Michio Kaku on the subject of solar flares.  There was one so severe in 1859 that people could read newspapers at night in Cuba due to the brilliant aurora.  It knocked out telegraph service.

If such were to happen today, life would come to a standstill.  Actually, that would be the least of our troubles, according to Kaku.  For their would be a grave risk of nuclear meltdowns at light water nuclear reactors.  If the controls go out in one of these storms, a meltdown could not be stopped.

But if such were to happen to a molten-salt reactor, it could be recovered.  That's because of its passive safety features.

Sadly, nobody will pay any attention while thinking that this can't happen to them.

### When I saw this I had to chuckle

Chuck Butler, Kitco Commentary

quote:

I had a young man ask me about Japan's stock market the other day. I said, "WOW! What a move this stock market has made. But here's the kicker. For everyone else outside of Japan that buys into the Japanese stock market, they have to convert their base currency for yen, and then buy the stocks with their yen. And the yen has lost 25% in value in the past 6 months, so, the stock market has to gain more than 25% to offset the loss of the yen." The young man looked at me, and said, "my broker didn't tell me that".[emphasis added]

comment:

The "young man" showed his age.  Don't be so gullible.  But that's the trouble these days.  Too many gullible people out there not asking questions that need to be asked.

### Annual home prices rise to 7 year high; consumer confidence at 5 year high

americanthinker.com/blog

comment:

Another perspective on the econ news today:

Looks like it's bubble like, this economy, and thus it will have the same outcome as before.

Anyway, there's no new jobs, just a lot of hot air going into that bubble.

### Judge denies delay, bars evidence in George Zimmerman trial

Judge denies delay, bars evidence in George Zimmerman trial

comment:

This trial looks like the OJ trial all over again.  Fits the zeitgeist.

### Christians Together : The Miracle of Dunkirk: 70 years on

Christians Together : The Miracle of Dunkirk: 70 years on

comment:

Rather stirring.  You know, it may be considered quite a stretch, but I think we may be in a similar situation today.  No, they are no tanks and planes about to attack.  But there's something else afoot that is almost as bad.

I'm thinking of the fact that China is getting a bit too close to getting the intellectual property rights to molten-salt reactor tech.  If they get this, nothing is left to hang our hats on.

I know there are a lot of people out there who believe that some other technology may come to the fore, but that may not happen, or if it does, it may not be in time.  For time is critical.  It may not matter that you have a better idea, but what you have when you need it.

We've got to get the intellectual property before the Chinese wrap it up and monopolize it.  That's the danger.

It looks like the only way that this may occur is by a miracle.  It is a miracle that must come from the people who will pray to God for deliverance as the Brits did when they were faced with catastrophe.

I know that sounds excessive, but I think it's the truth.

### The Media Will Not Turn on Obama says Rush

Rush Limbaugh via Free Republic

quote:
RUSH: I had a number of e-mails over the weekend. I went out and played golf on Saturday, and I can't tell you the number of people I run into that think, "Okay, we've got Obama now. This is it," a combination of IRS and Benghazi. I'm not trying to be a downer here, I really am not. I'm just the mayor of Realville, and I'm telling you, none of this is going to result in any serious damage to Obama.
comment:

This is the direct contradiction to what Dick Morris said recently.  So, who's right on this one?

As for me, I thought bean bag Romney needed to address this during the campaign.  It's getting late in the game to do it now.

Better late than never, but it may be too late.

### What's the deal here?

I've been pushing this TEAC5 conference pretty hard, huh?  So, what's the point?  Well, someone may also ask, why don't you go yourself?

Two things off the top:
1. I've been battling health issues lately.  Although I may be able to swing it healthwise, I may actually be in some trouble if I get sick while out there on the road.  Also, driving all that distance would be costly and frankly a bit ridiculous.
2. Flying out there may be more sensible, but it would still cost money that frankly I had better not spend.  It's bad enough that I'm missing as much work as I'm missing.  Spending a grand on this conference is money that I just should not be spending in my circumstances.
3. Also, to fly out there would require me to give some info to priceline that I'm not going to give.  Yeah, I actually looked into going.
No trip for me.

Now another thing.   I've been pushing TEAC5, but that doesn't mean that I'm minimizing any other solutions.  It's just that Thorium was proven as a concept in the lab.  Other concepts haven't reached that point yet.  If Thorium can prove itself in the lab and still not get implemented, where does that leave the other concepts?  Thorium must be implemented or we have a situation on our hands whereby anything new will be shot down before it gets a chance.

### THE THORIUM PROBLEM - Danger of existing thorium regulation to U.S...

US government is stupid or incompetent or corrupt, or all three on this issue.  Yeah, it's harsh, but somebody's gotta say it.

Do you want to solve the energy problem and get rid of all ( or most of EXISTING waste )?

 He doesn't say this, but I'm inferring it from this chart.  You can use LFTR's to reduce existing waste by 90%

### Joe Sestak to address TEAC5

Will be speaking at the TEAC5 which is set to begin on May 30th, 2013.

Sestak is from Pennsylvania, so I'm not familiar with him.  A look at his positions shows that he's pretty much a liberal.

Inasmuch as I am definitely not a liberal, but the reverse, his appearance there without an appearance from a conservative is cause for some distress.

Nevertheless, his support of thorium energy is much appreciated and welcomed here.  I wish I could say the same for the GOP.

### Joe Bonometti - Thorium Education & Outreach @ TEAC4

This one was posted  before, most likely.  Worth doing again.

### Alex Cannara - Linear No-Threshold Radiation Lies @ TEAC4

I've probably posted this before, but it is well worth the re-post. By the way, the TEAC5 conference will be held at the end of this week. These are the highlights of last year's ( TEAC4 ) conference.

This was the 16th of 23 videos.  I've skipped a few because I don't know if I have the time to watch all these and comment upon them.

# Surge In Consumer Confidence To 2008 Levels Sends 10 Year Yield To 2013 Highs

### Darryl Siemer - Vitrification of Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle Radwastes

Discussion of how to handle the waste. Nuts and bolts kind of stuff.  Ninth of the 23 videos in the playlist.

### Rally on Wall Street today

Most likely the rally is the result of higher consumer confidence numbers.  However, I do not believe that this is quite the good news that it appears to be.  I have had the view for a long time now that our problem is in production, not consumption.

The mere fact that consumers feel more confident does not help much with production.  We need growth drivers that come primarily from production, not consumption.  Increasing consumption seems to mainly increase personal and public debt.  Something has to pay for this debt.  That something can be energy production.

Now we have a phenomenon known as fracking which is helping to increase energy production.  This is only a first step of many that are necessary.  It is not the final answer.

The final answer must be nuclear and there's a way to do this safely and economically.  That's what my focus is on this blog at the moment.

### Baroness Bryony Worthington - Political Challenges of Thorium Molten Salt

Skip number 6 in the playlist and move on to the seventh video featuring Baroness Bryony Worthington of the House of Lords in the UK.  She mentions the Weinberg Foundation in honor of Alvin Weinberg's work in the nuclear power field, as well as some useful pointers in dealing with politicians.

### The Stupidity of Our Federal Government

On vivid display in the Jim Kennedy talk at TEAC4 last year.  By the way, I'm going through each of these in sequence and this is the fifth of the series.  Anyway, he closes with this one, enough to get this old man's blood pressure up through the roof.  It should get yours up too if you care anything at all about our future.

### Richard Martin at TEAC4 2012

This video is also well worth watching. I did a review of Richard Martin's book, which I have linked down at the bottom of left sidebar.

### Thorium Energy Alliance Conference #5 Invitation - May 30 & 31, 2013 in Chicago, IL

This is a very long playlist of 23 videos.  I hope you can watch all of them.  However, if you don't have the time or the patience, try to at least watch the 3rd one with Kirk Sorensen.  If he can't convince you of the superiority of this method of nuclear energy, nobody can.

# 40 'Frightening' Facts On The Fall Of The US Economy

### A couple things to mention

Number one:  I didn't know much about Michio Kaku.  He does appear to be rather glib and knowledgeable.  Don't want to knock him, but he seems to dwell on problems as opposed to actually solving the problems.

Once again---a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme will NOT WORK.

Number two:  I had to fix a link in one of my series.  Electric Cars Are Feasible Today.  Now that is fixed and that part of my research IS DONE.  Electric cars are feasible and economically competitive TODAY.

In order to make them a reality will take a special kind of person who may not exist.  It won't happen by itself.  You may look for such a person in politics, but you are just about guaranteed 100% that you will not find such a person there.  A person in business?  Well, maybe.  The only thing is that these people are likely not interested in doing this kind of project unless they are at the end of their careers.  Someone younger will probably have other fish to fry.

Elon Musk?  I don't think so.  He is a believer in solar, which is going nowhere.