Answer: It already is.
Thorium is the greenest energy there is.
If you don't like radioactivity, the Earth is no place to live. One might be surprised to learn what is radioactive. Stuff not usually considered radioactive actually is radioactive. Pepto Bismol anyone?
Sorensen is a self described nuclear hacker. It's how things really happen in the real world.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Red pill or blue pill?
That was the choice placed before the character "Neo" in The Matrix. Morpheus says "all I'm offering is the truth, and nothing more." I think the blue and red pills are symbolic of denial and acceptance of reality. It is an artful way of showing something that is applicable in real life. Reality and denial are not just words and these concepts are not mere props in a movie.
No, please do not misunderstand. I'm not claiming we are all living in The Matrix. But I do believe we are all living in massive denial. Morpheus is but a character in a movie who does know something that he wants to show. But we are not living the movie. This is real life, so what is the truth?
The real trick is finding out what the truth is because it isn't so easy to know who is deceiving you and who is not. But somebody is.
I have something in mind that sparked these thoughts. Go to Barnhardt's website and see if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Again, all it is but an attempt to see reality for what it is. You have to decide whatever it is that you want to believe.
No, please do not misunderstand. I'm not claiming we are all living in The Matrix. But I do believe we are all living in massive denial. Morpheus is but a character in a movie who does know something that he wants to show. But we are not living the movie. This is real life, so what is the truth?
The real trick is finding out what the truth is because it isn't so easy to know who is deceiving you and who is not. But somebody is.
I have something in mind that sparked these thoughts. Go to Barnhardt's website and see if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Again, all it is but an attempt to see reality for what it is. You have to decide whatever it is that you want to believe.
Is Mark Steyn right or is he wrong?
Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds doesn't agree with Steyn.
Steyn says:
I think Steyn is recognizing the problems and has come up with the conclusion that they are not solvable. Reynolds must think the problems are solvable.
The problems can't be solved if their existence is denied. The people who tell us global warming is caused by man are the same ones who are saddling us with an impossible debt.
So who's doing the bad thinking, the so called right, or the left?
Steyn says:
Look around you. The late-20th-century Western lifestyle isn’t going to be around much longer. In a few years’ time, our children will look at old TV commercials showing retirees dancing, golfing, cruising away their sixties and seventies, and wonder what alternative universe that came from. In turn, their children will be amazed to discover that in the early 21st century the Western world thought it entirely normal that vast swathes of the citizenry should while away their youth enjoying what, a mere hundred years earlier, would have been the leisurely varsity of the younger son of a Mitteleuropean Grand Duke.
I think Steyn is recognizing the problems and has come up with the conclusion that they are not solvable. Reynolds must think the problems are solvable.
The problems can't be solved if their existence is denied. The people who tell us global warming is caused by man are the same ones who are saddling us with an impossible debt.
So who's doing the bad thinking, the so called right, or the left?
ScienceShot: What Struck Earth in 775?
ScienceNOW
Carbon 14 is taken up by living things. It is in everybody's bodies. Radioactivity is a fact of nature.
An analysis of the rings of two Japanese cedar trees (typical tree rings shown above), reported online today in Nature, reveals that from 774 to 775 C.E., the atmospheric level of radioactive carbon-14 jumped by 1.2%. This indicates that cosmic rays—high-speed, charged particles from space—bombarded our planet and converted some atmospheric nitrogen-14 into carbon-14.
Carbon 14 is taken up by living things. It is in everybody's bodies. Radioactivity is a fact of nature.
Good thinking v. Bad Thinking
The history of the nuclear power industry is a prime example of what can happen because of bad thinking. But it was good thinking that first brought it into existence.
So, in this context, what is meant by good thinking and bad thinking? I've included a link here for a course in learning how to do good thinking. I have a hunch that Einstein and others knew how to think well, and their manner of thinking was similar to what is in the link here.
But what is bad thinking? Here's a video that may counter the information about good thinking. This gives a general sense of what good thinking is and bad thinking is. But how does this relate to the nuclear power industry?
It should be obvious, I would think. Bad thinking leads to bad outcomes, does it not? A simple mistake is not necessarily bad thinking per se, but a series of mistakes that follows a pattern would be a good example of bad thinking.
Light water reactors have flaws in the design. That should be obvious by now. But it is to be expected that people will make mistakes. From these mistakes, you can learn and improve. Good thinking means learning from mistakes and improving. Bad thinking is overreacting to a the consequences of a mistake and refusing to learn from it and making yet another mistake.
A molten salt reactor is a better design, but it was overlooked and ignored. That was the mistake. It would simply be yet another mistake to say that all reactors are unsafe and all radioactivity is bad. To say something like that is ignoring the reality of radioactivity in the natural environment. You can't get away from it.
It is like the discovering fire and saying that because fires can kill that all fires are bad and must be avoided at all times. Obviously, that is bad thinking. If you refused to use fire because it may hurt you, then you will have done more harm to yourself than what you may gain by avoiding it. Where would you be without using fire? The same is true about radioactivity. The significance of radioactivity is the same as the significance of fire for mankind. Both are potentially dangerous. But both can do amazing things to improve the lives of people.
If you would think of it this way: radioactivity is just like fire, but much more powerful. It is a fact of nature just as fire is. Learning how to use it safely is a great advantage. Ignoring its advantages is just bad thinking. Learning how to use it safely is good thinking.
Nuclear power is a million times more powerful than chemical energy. Fire is nothing more than chemical energy. If fire is good, then radioactivity must be really, really good. If nuclear energy is bad, then fire is bad.
But neither are bad. They are what they are. It is what people do with these things that make them good or bad. These phenomena mean power. Power can be abused. But it is people who do the bad things. The thing itself is neither good nor bad.
So, in this context, what is meant by good thinking and bad thinking? I've included a link here for a course in learning how to do good thinking. I have a hunch that Einstein and others knew how to think well, and their manner of thinking was similar to what is in the link here.
But what is bad thinking? Here's a video that may counter the information about good thinking. This gives a general sense of what good thinking is and bad thinking is. But how does this relate to the nuclear power industry?
It should be obvious, I would think. Bad thinking leads to bad outcomes, does it not? A simple mistake is not necessarily bad thinking per se, but a series of mistakes that follows a pattern would be a good example of bad thinking.
Light water reactors have flaws in the design. That should be obvious by now. But it is to be expected that people will make mistakes. From these mistakes, you can learn and improve. Good thinking means learning from mistakes and improving. Bad thinking is overreacting to a the consequences of a mistake and refusing to learn from it and making yet another mistake.
A molten salt reactor is a better design, but it was overlooked and ignored. That was the mistake. It would simply be yet another mistake to say that all reactors are unsafe and all radioactivity is bad. To say something like that is ignoring the reality of radioactivity in the natural environment. You can't get away from it.
It is like the discovering fire and saying that because fires can kill that all fires are bad and must be avoided at all times. Obviously, that is bad thinking. If you refused to use fire because it may hurt you, then you will have done more harm to yourself than what you may gain by avoiding it. Where would you be without using fire? The same is true about radioactivity. The significance of radioactivity is the same as the significance of fire for mankind. Both are potentially dangerous. But both can do amazing things to improve the lives of people.
If you would think of it this way: radioactivity is just like fire, but much more powerful. It is a fact of nature just as fire is. Learning how to use it safely is a great advantage. Ignoring its advantages is just bad thinking. Learning how to use it safely is good thinking.
Nuclear power is a million times more powerful than chemical energy. Fire is nothing more than chemical energy. If fire is good, then radioactivity must be really, really good. If nuclear energy is bad, then fire is bad.
But neither are bad. They are what they are. It is what people do with these things that make them good or bad. These phenomena mean power. Power can be abused. But it is people who do the bad things. The thing itself is neither good nor bad.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Bronowski probably would have approved of the LFTR
Bronowski was a friend of Leó Szilárd, who was Eugene Wigner's closest friend. Szilárd was a collaborator and friend of Einstein, who convinced FDR to approve the Manhattan Project. According to Kirk Sorensen, without Wigner, the Manhattan Project may not have been successful. Wigner believed the molten salt reactor was a better design than the solid fuel reactor. In other words, Wigner was a pretty smart guy and knew the smartest people in the world at that time. It is therefore not a stretch to see how this type of reactor would have met Bronowski's approval. In fact, the ending of the Molten Salt Reactor Program at Oak Ridge occurred just before Bronowski's death. This may have been one of the factors, along with the end of the Apollo Program, that led to his warning.
Here's Sorensen discussing his history and the history of the Molten Salt Reactor. The relevant parts here were discussed in the first 30 minutes of the video.
Update:
Kardashevian Aspirations: Thorium Energy Alliance: A short update on that post recently, which has some actionable material in it, just in case you wanted to, you know, DO SOMETHING. Well, ...
Seaborg and Weinberg are in this post along with Pres Kennedy. Weinberg invented the light water reactor and the molten salt reactor. He was fired for expressing concerns about safety of the light water reactors, and was a strong advocate of the molten salt reactors. The molten salt reactor technology was forgotten.
It was Wigner who sold Weinberg on the idea of the molten salt reactors. What this means is that the finest scientific minds wanted this technology to succeed because they recognized the significance of its advantages, and the need for the benefits of this technology.
Here's Sorensen discussing his history and the history of the Molten Salt Reactor. The relevant parts here were discussed in the first 30 minutes of the video.
Update:
Kardashevian Aspirations: Thorium Energy Alliance: A short update on that post recently, which has some actionable material in it, just in case you wanted to, you know, DO SOMETHING. Well, ...
Seaborg and Weinberg are in this post along with Pres Kennedy. Weinberg invented the light water reactor and the molten salt reactor. He was fired for expressing concerns about safety of the light water reactors, and was a strong advocate of the molten salt reactors. The molten salt reactor technology was forgotten.
It was Wigner who sold Weinberg on the idea of the molten salt reactors. What this means is that the finest scientific minds wanted this technology to succeed because they recognized the significance of its advantages, and the need for the benefits of this technology.
Island hopping or hitting them where they ain't
Island hopping was a World War II naval strategy employed against the Japanese Imperial Navy. It was meant to complement the overall strategy of defeating the Nazis first because they were judged to be the more difficult opponent. Jeff Greason mentioned the need for a strategy in a talk with respect to our approach to space. America sort of has a goal with respect to space, but there is no strategy- nothing like Island hopping strategy of World War II.
The goal is softly spoken if at all and that goal with respect to space is to settle it. But this post isn't about war, or about space, but about nuclear energy. In particular, LFTRs and how it may be possible to overcome the resistance to the idea, and how these may be implemented as soon as possible. To do that requires a strategy.
A strategy may exist for implementing the LFTR. The main player here is Kirk Sorensen, and his new company called Flibe Energy. From what I can gather, his idea is to go to the military and get some contracts there. He's going where the anti-nukes have the least power to oppose him. He's hitting them where they ain't. And that may be the path of least resistance. Perhaps it is akin to the Island hopping strategy.
Overall, this is a good idea. Trying to go against an established industry is like taking on the Imperial Navy with all your ships sunk and at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But how to implement this strategy in the nuclear context in a broader "front"? Military applications provide rather narrow opportunities.
And persuasion is a hard job. Education takes a long time.
You may have a lot of trouble trying to persuade people who are hostile to you from the get go. It would be like going to enemy and trying to make a treaty while the war is raging on. The enemy may be in no mood to parley if they are doing really well. If they start losing, they may be more inclined to begin negotiations.
The "enemy" has the high ground as of the moment due to the Fukushima disaster. They may be believe that their position is so strong that there is little reason to discuss the matter any further. But there is a saying that you should quit while you are ahead. If the anti-nukes press their advantage too hard, they may end up with only a won battle, but a lost war.
On the other hand, it would be foolhardy not to recognize the issues. The anti-nukes have won a point. Nuclear energy is not to be taken lightly. Yet they are pressing the issue too far if they attempt to go for all out victory and a total ban on nuclear energy. It may wise of them to consider a negotiation with their concerns being fully addressed to their satisfaction. If that is not possible, then perhaps a reasonable compromise. That's the rub, because reasonable is one of those slippery words that seem to get defined according to
ones own satisfaction- but not your adversary's.
Sorensen has done a great job showing all the advantages of LFTRs. But there may not be enough discussion dedicated to the downside of this technology. That's because nothing made by man is perfect. Every technology will have a downside of some kind. Every energy strategy will incur a certain risk. Although the risks are small with LFTRs, it cannot be said that the risks are zero. There is some risk. But as best as I can determine, the risks are small and manageable. The rewards far exceed the risks which makes this a worthwhile project.
But the risks associated with solar and wind seem to be relatively mild. This looks like a risk free option. But is it? One risk that has to be faced is that wind and solar just aren't going to be as cheap as fossil fuels. Even if you get the prices down to where they are competitive, you are going to need more installed capacity because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. This will add to costs. So, the actual cost of wind and solar have to be superior to fossil fuels and that doesn't seem to be likely soon, if at all. Those who choose wind and solar will have the added costs of that option tacked onto the usual costs of doing business. This will give them a competitive disadvantage.
You can argue that risks for wind and solar don't exist or can be managed. But you can say the same with nuclear energy. But the LFTRs are even cheaper than coal, so the economic advantage shifts to LFTRs. This is how the anti-nukes can lose the war. In a world that is hungry for energy, an energy strategy that is too economically limiting is going to have to face those difficult and stubborn facts. Another one of these facts is that solar and wind take up too much land area. This can conflict with certain other environmental goals, such as preserving habitat. The disadvantages of solar and wind can start to appear rather daunting when it doesn't even meet all the goals of green policy- and even conflicts with it at times.
The anti-nukes have won a battle. But not the war. One way or another, the world's energy needs will have to be met. If they insist upon a total ban on nuclear energy, their victory will be short lived. Their concerns will be better served if they listen to what Sorensen has to say. His ideas can be very useful for implementing significant portions of green policies- while limiting the downside. He has reasonably addressed most, if not all of their concerns. If the anti-nukes will admit this and get with the LFTR program, they'll be doing themselves a favor. They should quit while they are ahead.
There should be those who support green policies who can also agree that LFTRs are a good choice and should be implemented. They should not let themselves go down with the extremist's ship. Those who are not onboard the LFTR ship should get on now. LFTR can do everything that solar and wind can do and do it even better. The risk is that the will get outflanked and their "ship" will be sunk. Therefore, they should convince their friends to get onboard too assuming that they care about the environment. If that happens, you can have a broader front to take on the fossil fuel industry and to beat it.
Joining the anti-nuke extremists may actually play into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. One thing that the oil industry doesn't want is a viable competitor. One thing that they really like is to be able to charge as much as they can for their products. You want them to have to compete. You want to have choices so they don't have you over the energy barrel. You want an alternative that's really an alternative. You should want the LFTR. It's good economics. It's good for the environment. The risks are small and manageable. The risks of the status quo are getting worse all the time.
The goal is softly spoken if at all and that goal with respect to space is to settle it. But this post isn't about war, or about space, but about nuclear energy. In particular, LFTRs and how it may be possible to overcome the resistance to the idea, and how these may be implemented as soon as possible. To do that requires a strategy.
A strategy may exist for implementing the LFTR. The main player here is Kirk Sorensen, and his new company called Flibe Energy. From what I can gather, his idea is to go to the military and get some contracts there. He's going where the anti-nukes have the least power to oppose him. He's hitting them where they ain't. And that may be the path of least resistance. Perhaps it is akin to the Island hopping strategy.
Overall, this is a good idea. Trying to go against an established industry is like taking on the Imperial Navy with all your ships sunk and at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. But how to implement this strategy in the nuclear context in a broader "front"? Military applications provide rather narrow opportunities.
And persuasion is a hard job. Education takes a long time.
You may have a lot of trouble trying to persuade people who are hostile to you from the get go. It would be like going to enemy and trying to make a treaty while the war is raging on. The enemy may be in no mood to parley if they are doing really well. If they start losing, they may be more inclined to begin negotiations.
The "enemy" has the high ground as of the moment due to the Fukushima disaster. They may be believe that their position is so strong that there is little reason to discuss the matter any further. But there is a saying that you should quit while you are ahead. If the anti-nukes press their advantage too hard, they may end up with only a won battle, but a lost war.
On the other hand, it would be foolhardy not to recognize the issues. The anti-nukes have won a point. Nuclear energy is not to be taken lightly. Yet they are pressing the issue too far if they attempt to go for all out victory and a total ban on nuclear energy. It may wise of them to consider a negotiation with their concerns being fully addressed to their satisfaction. If that is not possible, then perhaps a reasonable compromise. That's the rub, because reasonable is one of those slippery words that seem to get defined according to
ones own satisfaction- but not your adversary's.
Sorensen has done a great job showing all the advantages of LFTRs. But there may not be enough discussion dedicated to the downside of this technology. That's because nothing made by man is perfect. Every technology will have a downside of some kind. Every energy strategy will incur a certain risk. Although the risks are small with LFTRs, it cannot be said that the risks are zero. There is some risk. But as best as I can determine, the risks are small and manageable. The rewards far exceed the risks which makes this a worthwhile project.
But the risks associated with solar and wind seem to be relatively mild. This looks like a risk free option. But is it? One risk that has to be faced is that wind and solar just aren't going to be as cheap as fossil fuels. Even if you get the prices down to where they are competitive, you are going to need more installed capacity because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. This will add to costs. So, the actual cost of wind and solar have to be superior to fossil fuels and that doesn't seem to be likely soon, if at all. Those who choose wind and solar will have the added costs of that option tacked onto the usual costs of doing business. This will give them a competitive disadvantage.
You can argue that risks for wind and solar don't exist or can be managed. But you can say the same with nuclear energy. But the LFTRs are even cheaper than coal, so the economic advantage shifts to LFTRs. This is how the anti-nukes can lose the war. In a world that is hungry for energy, an energy strategy that is too economically limiting is going to have to face those difficult and stubborn facts. Another one of these facts is that solar and wind take up too much land area. This can conflict with certain other environmental goals, such as preserving habitat. The disadvantages of solar and wind can start to appear rather daunting when it doesn't even meet all the goals of green policy- and even conflicts with it at times.
The anti-nukes have won a battle. But not the war. One way or another, the world's energy needs will have to be met. If they insist upon a total ban on nuclear energy, their victory will be short lived. Their concerns will be better served if they listen to what Sorensen has to say. His ideas can be very useful for implementing significant portions of green policies- while limiting the downside. He has reasonably addressed most, if not all of their concerns. If the anti-nukes will admit this and get with the LFTR program, they'll be doing themselves a favor. They should quit while they are ahead.
There should be those who support green policies who can also agree that LFTRs are a good choice and should be implemented. They should not let themselves go down with the extremist's ship. Those who are not onboard the LFTR ship should get on now. LFTR can do everything that solar and wind can do and do it even better. The risk is that the will get outflanked and their "ship" will be sunk. Therefore, they should convince their friends to get onboard too assuming that they care about the environment. If that happens, you can have a broader front to take on the fossil fuel industry and to beat it.
Joining the anti-nuke extremists may actually play into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. One thing that the oil industry doesn't want is a viable competitor. One thing that they really like is to be able to charge as much as they can for their products. You want them to have to compete. You want to have choices so they don't have you over the energy barrel. You want an alternative that's really an alternative. You should want the LFTR. It's good economics. It's good for the environment. The risks are small and manageable. The risks of the status quo are getting worse all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)