Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 01:08:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'J')ust say resistance continues in the west. China gets this prototype up and in 3 years decides on and begins to implement a massive rollout.

I didn't read Rune's latest cut-and-pasted text walls, but his previous posts suggest a 30-year time scale for thorium, best case scenario. China says it plans to spend 0.004% of its GDP on thorium development (but isn't currently spending even that small amount). That's how serious they are about it. They plan on spending a tiny bit of money on it, some time in the future.


I hear you saying that you can't read an excerpt from a book - the length of short article, totally relevant to the OP. I believe you! You seem like the kind of person who would have a lot of trouble reading.

Look, the Chinese have a nuclear layout of $511 billion. They are responsible for half the reactor development in the world today.

The Chinese have made an initial layout of $350 million for a research project. The US spent $8 million to develop Molten Salt Reactors (the progenitor of LFTRs) in the 50's and we were successful as hell. But politics busted it despite the overwhelming success.

http://whb.news365.com.cn/yw/201101/t20 ... 944856.htm
(partial google translation follows)

“Yesterday, as the Chinese Academy of Sciences started the first one of the strategic leader in science and technology projects, “the future of advanced nuclear fission energy – nuclear energy, thorium-based molten salt reactor system” project was officially launched. The scientific goal is to use 20 years or so, developed a new generation of nuclear energy systems, all the technical level reached in the trial and have all intellectual property rights.”

Son of China’s ex-president: Thorium will help shape country’s energy future

Zemin is heading the Chinese LFTR research program.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Surf » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 02:45:52

It should be noted that most of the information about thorium reactors is based on one experimental 7.4MW (thermal output) reactor that only operated for 4 years before it was shut down. Almost everything else written about LIFT reactors is based on theoretical studies. While these studies all look good there are still a lot of unknowns.

The corrosion resistant metal held up well during the experiment and lab test look good but often in actual practice the results are not as good. Corrosion could be a much bigger issue than is often assumed.

The LIFT requires continuous salt processing to remove the fission wast products. No one has built a full scale salt processing facility and tested it for reliability and the cost of making it and running it are largely unknown.

During operation a full scale reactor will produce a lot of tritium, helium, krypton, and Xenon gas. Much of this gas is radioactive and produces a lot of heat. This gas cannot be simply vented into the air. it must be stored under pressure in steel bottles for about 100 years. I have not yet seen any proposed gas handling system design or a construction and operating cost estimate for it.

While the LIFT reactors do look good a lot of work and operational experience is needed with smaller reactors is need before we can be sure what the final cost of the utility scale reactor will be. The unknowns could push the cost of making the reactor and operating it much higher than the currently believed. The cost of the electricity produced by it could end up being very expensive. 50 years ago people thought nuclear plants would produce power too cheap to meter. It didn't work out that way.

Currently wind power is producing power at very low cost that can often undercut the cost of fissile fuel power and and in some cases even nuclear power even in countries that that have no renewable energy subsidies. For a home in a remove place not connected to the grid, solar is often the lowest cost source of power. By the time LIFT reactors become available renewable may be well into there exponential growth phase and could be pushing fossil fuels out of the market.

While many renewable energy technologies produce intermittent power, some actually can produce power on demand. geothermal and hydro often do load following and generate poer 24 hours a day. solar thermal with thermal storage in a desert location can also generate power on demand or continuously, and even at night. the Gemasolar plant has an output of 19.9MW, 110GWhr per year today and more are being built. All of north Africa, the middle east, Australia, and the southwest US can meat all of there energy needs using Gemasolar type plants without any nuclear waste or pollution. they could even produce excess electricity for export to neighboring counties or states or use the excess power to make liquid fuel for long term energy storage or use by aircraft or ships. Electricity will be the dominate energy source for road and rail transport because renewable electricity will always cost less than fuel made from renewable electricity.

[url]ww.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en[/url]
Surf
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat 13 Jul 2013, 14:13:49

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 14:37:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Surf', 'I')t should be noted that most of the information about thorium reactors is based on one experimental 7.4MW (thermal output) reactor that only operated for 4 years before it was shut down. Almost everything else written about LIFT reactors is based on theoretical studies. While these studies all look good there are still a lot of unknowns.

The corrosion resistant metal held up well during the experiment and lab test look good but often in actual practice the results are not as good. Corrosion could be a much bigger issue than is often assumed.

The LIFT requires continuous salt processing to remove the fission wast products. No one has built a full scale salt processing facility and tested it for reliability and the cost of making it and running it are largely unknown.

During operation a full scale reactor will produce a lot of tritium, helium, krypton, and Xenon gas. Much of this gas is radioactive and produces a lot of heat. This gas cannot be simply vented into the air. it must be stored under pressure in steel bottles for about 100 years. I have not yet seen any proposed gas handling system design or a construction and operating cost estimate for it.


From Wikipedia:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'X')enon-135 (135Xe) is an unstable isotope of xenon with a half-life of about 9.2 hours. 135Xe is a fission product of uranium and it is the most powerful known neutron-absorbing nuclear poison (2 million barns[1]), with a significant effect on nuclear reactor operation. The ultimate yield of xenon-135 from fission is 6.3%, though most of this is from fission-produced tellurium-135 and iodine-135.


In a Uranium Fuel Cycle, the moderating rods become contaminated with this substance primarily. It is the main reason why nuclear fuel in conventional reactors have to be discarded arfter only a few percent of the potential energy is liberated.

IN a LFTR, Xenon-135 can be boiled off and collected in a continuous process while the reactor continues to operate. It decays in a few hours.

Russian MSR research program

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n Russia, a molten-salt reactor research program was started in the second half of the 1970s at the Kurchatov Institute. It covered a wide range of theoretical and experimental studies, particularly the investigation of mechanical, corrosion and radiation properties of the molten salt container materials. The main findings of completed program supported the conclusion that there are no physical nor technological obstacles to the practical implementation of MSRs.[9] A reduction in activity occurred after 1986 due to the Chernobyl disaster, along with a general stagnation of nuclear power and nuclear industry.


Krypton is an inert gas with market value. Tritium can be burned up in the as part of the continuous process of a LFTR. It does not affect neutron absorption.

Thorium flouride, beryllium flouride... these are salts. It is why a LFTR is called a molten salt reactor. The reason for using thorium flouride and a mixture of other salts is for maximum efficiency in heat conductivity as well as for other reason pertaining to nuclear physics. A LFTR is an improved MSR.

But, I guess it's good to know that renewables - wind, solar, etc - will save us. I always figured Peak Oil Apocalypse was a crock.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 15:43:16

LFTRs - A Global aternative

Kirk Sorenson's youtube presentation.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby ROCKMAN » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 16:22:34

Rune – “I always figured Peak Oil Apocalypse was a crock.” As did I. OTOH given the US consumers have increased their oil bill from $230 billion/yr to $630 billion/yr in the last 10 years it doesn’t appear “renewables - wind, solar, etc.” are saving us at the moment. Maybe if the cost of oil to the American consumer increases 270% again in the next decade the alts will begin to kick in big time…if we have enough capital to pay for them at that time.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 17:37:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'R')une – “I always figured Peak Oil Apocalypse was a crock.” As did I. OTOH given the US consumers have increased their oil bill from $230 billion/yr to $630 billion/yr in the last 10 years it doesn’t appear “renewables - wind, solar, etc.” are saving us at the moment. Maybe if the cost of oil to the American consumer increases 270% again in the next decade the alts will begin to kick in big time…if we have enough capital to pay for them at that time.


The cost of oil surely WILL increase. And the cost to the environment surely will increase - particularly through the continued burning of coal.

Coal emits more radiotoxicity to the environment than nuclar energy ever has -- more mercury, heavy metals, more particulates, GOBS of CO2.

We could end all this relatively cheaply. Just watch that video I posted of Kirk Sorenson on LFTRs. It just makes such complete common sense.

And it is not as if Sorenson is some lone voice. There are voices raising a cry about thorium all over the world. The declaration of the Chinese thorium initiative said as much.

The only thing stopping RD&D in the US is politics and sheer inertia of everything. That is a very different thing than saying a resource is running out or reaching a peak. Politics is just smelly vapor mitted by an ass.

We should put a cork in the butthole and actually do something about obtaining clean, green, energy cheaper than coal.

If people like Richard Heinberg or James Howard Kunstler had any integrity, they would look at these same set of facts and start alerting their readerships to the important advantages that LFTR can bring to our economics, security, and energy future.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Loki » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 20:55:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', '
')I hear you saying that you can't read an excerpt from a book - the length of short article, totally relevant to the OP. I believe you! You seem like the kind of person who would have a lot of trouble reading.

You are a sweetheart, aren't you? THORIUM, THORIUM, THORIUM!!!!! Did I get the gist of your latest screed? I'd call your posts spam, but you actually seem to believe that the solution to FREE VIAGRA is just around the corner.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ook, the Chinese have a nuclear layout of $511 billion.

Of which 0.07% is in thorium development. Impressive. Now I've done the math, I gotta agree that THORIUM IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!!! FREE VIAGRA!!!
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 21:41:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', '
')I hear you saying that you can't read an excerpt from a book - the length of short article, totally relevant to the OP. I believe you! You seem like the kind of person who would have a lot of trouble reading.

You are a sweetheart, aren't you? THORIUM, THORIUM, THORIUM!!!!! Did I get the gist of your latest screed? I'd call your posts spam, but you actually seem to believe that the solution to FREE VIAGRA is just around the corner.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ook, the Chinese have a nuclear layout of $511 billion.

Of which 0.07% is in thorium development. Impressive. Now I've done the math, I gotta agree that THORIUM IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER!!! FREE VIAGRA!!!


You sound like a child.

I don't know what the total US budget for nuclear energy was in 1965, but we only spent $8 million on the Molten Salt Reactor over 4 years. The reactor was a total success. And we scrapped it.

The MSR went critical in 1965. Funding was approved a few years earlier.

$8 million in 1960 has the same value as $63 million in 2013 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation calculator.

By contrast, the Chinese are spending $350 million on their LFTR research and development mission. And, they do not have to start from scratch as we did. They are the inheritors of a whole shitload of received technological know-how. Also, Chinese energy policy is not hobbled by stultifying political inertia that the US and the West in general suffers from.

They are hiring first-rate scientific and engineering talent, something like 174 PhDs at the time of a Telegraph article about the program earlier this year.

And that $350 mil is described as "an initial layout".

Seems like the essence of serious pursuit of leadership in advanced nuclear reactor technology to me.

Cry about it all you want. And you can use your viagra like a suppository.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 22:29:38

The Telegraph

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he thorium story is by now well-known. Enthusiasts think it could be the transforming technology needed to drive the industrial revolutions of Asia -- and to avoid an almighty energy crunch as an extra two billion people climb the ladder to western lifestyles.

At the least, it could do for nuclear power what shale fracking has done for natural gas -- but on a bigger scale, for much longer, perhaps more cheaply, and with near zero CO2 emissions.

The Chinese are leading the charge, but they are not alone. Norway's Thor Energy began a four-year test last month with Japan's Toshiba-Westinghouse to see whether they could use thorium at Norway's conventional Halden reactor in Oslo.
The Japanese are keen to go further, knowing they have to come up with something radically new to regain public trust and save their nuclear industry.

Japan's International Institute for Advanced Studies (IIAS) -- now led by thorium enthusiast Takashi Kamei -- is researching molten salt reactors that use liquid fuel. Is this what Premier Shinzo Abe meant when he revealed before Christmas that he planned to relaunch nuclear power in Japan with "entirely different" technology? We will find out.

The Chinese aim to beat them to it. Technology for the molten salt process already exists. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee built such a reactor in the 1960s. It was shelved by the Nixon Administration. The Pentagon needed plutonium residue from uranium to build nuclear bombs. The imperatives of the Cold War prevailed.

The thorium blueprints gathered dust in the archives until retrieved and published by former Nasa engineer Kirk Sorensen. The US largely ignored him: China did not.

Mr Jiang visited the Oak Ridge labs and obtained the designs after reading an article in the American Scientist two years ago extolling thorium. His team concluded that a molten salt reactor -- if done the right way -- may answer China's prayers.

Mr Jiang says China's energy shortage is becoming "scary" and will soon pose a threat to national security. It is no secret what he means. Escalating disputes with with India, Vietnam, the Philippines, and above all Japan, are quickly becoming the biggest threat to world peace. It is a resource race compounded by a geo-strategic struggle, with echoes of the 1930s.

His mission is to do something about China's Achilles Heel very fast. The Shanghai team plans to build a tiny 2 MW plant using liquid flouride fuel by the end of the decade, before scaling up to commercially viable size over the 2020s. It is also working on a pebble-back reactor.

He estimates that China has enough thorium to power its electricity needs for "20,000 years". So does the world. The radioactive mineral is scattered across Britain. The Americans have buried tonnes of it, a hazardous by-product of rare earth metal mining.

China is already building 26 conventional reactors by 2015, with a further 51 planned, and 120 in the pipeline, but these have all the known drawbacks, and rely on imported uranium.


I've known about the attractiveness of thorium for a long time. Nbut when I discovered that so much was going on around the world, I perked up and got more interested.

Also, I keep reading from different sources that the Fukushima accident probably has spelled the end for Pressurized Light Water Reactors and has Thrown a pall over the Uranium Fuel cycle in general.

So I decided to read more about the subject. So far, got a couple of books and a bunch of articles under my belt about current events.

It's just current, international, energy news. But its exciting (to me) to watch these things develop. I probably would not expound upon if there were no important developments events to pay attention to.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Loki » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 22:42:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', 'C')ry about it all you want. And you can use your viagra like a suppository.

Is there any other way to take it? My question is this: When it will be free? What say ye? 30 mo' years? :lol:

The stark fact remains, using your own figures, the Chinese are currently spending 0.07% of their nuclear budget on thorium. You dispute this fact? This is simple division based on the numbers you provided.

The Chinese are alleged to be the saviors of mankind, doing yeoman's duty developing the next great energy source. Yet they're spending an order of magnitude less than Americans spend on porn every year. An actual order of magnitude. Look it up.

Your Chinese source was interesting, if only to see how horribly a computer can mangle Chinese-English translation. As far as I could glean, best case scenario they offered is that thorium would be commercially viable in 20 years. Considering technical glitches, cost overruns, local officials skimming off the top, labor disputes, economic cycles, etc. and we get..........wait for it.........30 mo' years :lol:
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Loki » Thu 17 Oct 2013, 23:00:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'R')une – “I always figured Peak Oil Apocalypse was a crock.” As did I. OTOH given the US consumers have increased their oil bill from $230 billion/yr to $630 billion/yr in the last 10 years it doesn’t appear “renewables - wind, solar, etc.” are saving us at the moment. Maybe if the cost of oil to the American consumer increases 270% again in the next decade the alts will begin to kick in big time…if we have enough capital to pay for them at that time.

Rockman, I like this trail you've been following about long-term trends in consumer spending on oil. It's such basic math, but it's just not out there in the public consciousness. Just a dim awareness that gas seems to be a bit spendier. Fact is, high gas prices have been a massive drag on the larger economy, and are certainly one of the explanatory factors in the rather lackluster "recovery" we've been enjoying. We're bleeding far more cash than we used to.

I'd also add the fact that median income declined considerably during the Great Recession, at least in the US. That magnifies the impact of higher energy prices.

Image
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 00:14:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'a')nother 20 years...


So 20 years to full commercial reality. Big deal.

Prototype in 2020. Demonstration reactor a few years later. Commercial mass-produced reactors afterwards.

Why does everything have to be available at Walmart yesterday for me to be interested in it?

I wouldn't be following the subject of LFTRs if it were already a mature, fully-developed energy technology. I am following it because it is an advent.

The whole world seems to be watching developements in this particular energy technology. And the Chinese seem best equipped to research and develop it. The Japanese look a what's happening and feel the need to stay competitive. India also.

Britain has an interest in it. Norway has an interest. Sweden...

It's a big task to develop Thorium. Twenty years to full commercial development seem entirely reasonable to me.

If it is done... if fusion energy doesn't somehow capture the limelight... thorium could run civilization for millenia. What the hell is 20 years?

I don't know what your bitching about, frankly. You just seem like you're on the rag for some unknown reason.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby ROCKMAN » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 08:29:13

Loki – Maybe many are just prejudiced by what the MSM is focused on at the moment and just don’t hear what many other folks are feeling. I deal with folks who live in the “collapsed“ world some speculate about happening in the future. Several months ago I watched a couple of families sell their kids toys and old cloths at a garage sale so they could raise money for their share of car pool expense so they could make it to their min wage jobs. That’s not a Mad Max world but it is very unpleasant.

Driving in this morning I thought about a global metric to make the same point. I just did a rough estimate: in the last 7 years the world’s oil consumers have transferred about $15 TRILLION to the oil producers. Had oil remained at the same price as it was for the 15 years from the late 80’s through the 90’s they would have paid about $5 TRILLION.

Granted the world economy is huge and metrics even in the range of tens of $billions are relatively small. But the increase in oil prices have reduced the amount of monies available for social service programs, home and business loans, salaries, etc. by $10 TRILLION in recent years. And currently the drain continues at a rate $3 TRILLION per year. Just a little more than a decade ago the bill would have been $800 billion/yr. If consumption and prices hold the world’s economies will transfer an additional $20 TRILLION to the oil producers by the end of this decade. That's a lot of capital that won't be available for the alt build out, mitigating the effects of GHG or anything else.

I and the other oil producers obviously have nothing to complain about. But we are a tiny minority of the world’s population. My world is very nice. Many folks on this site live in a rather comfortable world. But many others are already living in that “collapsed” economic world. And it looks as those numbers will be growing.

Essentially a recycling of that old joke: you have a good job…no economic problems. Your neighbor loses his job: a recession. You lose your job: a depression.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 13:32:48

In 1900, 90% of Americans were farmers. Now it's 2%.

The same trend has been happening in manufacturing, a fact that is taken for granted by nearly all economists. And the trend is strong.

It is forecast that the same sort of thing will happen in the area of cognitive skills.

Frequently, I am reading economics analyses that declare that growing wealth disparity will only increase - because only those with the proper skillsets to work in collaboration with machine intelligence will be worth hiring. Trends in automation, robotics, AI and all that are evidence that the middle-to-low class skill sets are not as valuable, as they once were in the 20th century.

"Average Is Over" was the title of one economics book I read recently describing the reasons behind the decline in median income and the erosion of the middle-class.

Only about 15% of the workforce has the sort of skills that are desperately needed.

But these trends have NOTHING to do with energy scarcity.

Recently, I went to Amazon and counted the number of books written about the 2008 financial crisis. I got to 59 before I started encountering titles with things like "chemtrails". NONE of these books attributed the crisis to energy scarcity as a primary contributor to the financial crisis.

On about the 9th page of results, I found one that dealt with the effects of the financial crisis ON the oil industry - the exact causative reverse.

It's a damn good thing that oil is priced where it is - at around $100 +/- $20.

This price allows for all sorts of energy innovation, conservation and efficiency improvements without wrecking global economic development.

It's interesting to watch these developments, which is what I mostly do on this site now.

It's farcical to pretend that we are living on some Mad Max era. We are not. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 17:57:51

Small Modular Reactor for Military Use

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he military has a good reputation of being first adopters of technologies that make a transition into the civilian world.

“It certainly doesn’t sound far fetched that the next phase of commercialization could involve military installations, or defense related installations,” Chupka said.

And, as history shows, it has been done before.

The Cold War-era Army nuclear energy program marked several notable achievements. One reactor became the first to be transportable on the back of a flatbed truck. The first use of nuclear-generated power to desalinate water took place at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica.

The Camp Century plant was the first prepackaged nuclear power plant to be installed, operated and subsequently removed, according to a declassified Energy Department report on the history of highly enriched uranium.

Today, gaining a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a long and arduous process, Chupka said.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he goal of the program is to kickstart the small modular nuclear reactor industry in the United States, create jobs and reduce Co2 emissions, an Energy Department official said in the story. The consortium will submit its license application to the NRC in 2015, but isn’t expected to have the reactor up and running until 2022.

Andres said it is difficult for anything having to do with nuclear energy to be built, developed or applied in the United States because of political opposition from some relatively small, but influential, groups.

“If the military champions them, they might be able to bypass that political resistance,” he said. “It is for national security, not for economic gain, and that argument has a lot more traction to get past the bureaucratic hurdles out there.”

Chupka added: “My guess is that a nuclear reactor on a military base would probably find more acceptance from the local community.”

However, as Andres noted, “When nuclear energy is mentioned, all logic instantly flies out the window.”


It would be a 180 MW reactor with a uranium fuel cycle. Nothing much more was said.

But it is probably the only positive development in the United States. Positive in the sense that it is factory built, modular, transportable by flatbed, etc.

If the US had factories to build small mod nuke plants, it could put a big dent in coal use and begin a new energy regimen that did not pump out gobs of CO2.

You could power a small town with one of these.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby dinopello » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 19:25:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'R')une, machine intelligence? Like Siri? Serious? Can Siri make my bed? Wash the dishes? Sirious?


I can't tell you how many times I've told Siri she's a freakin' moron.

My group is experimenting with neuromorphic chips. The stuff you read about in both popular science rags and in the professional research papers would probably make Carl all hot. But, don't believe the hype. Not to say that we can't do some useful things with learning machines but the domain has to be fairly narrow. Generalized artificial intelligence is a pipe dream.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Loki » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 21:21:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'S')everal months ago I watched a couple of families sell their kids toys and old cloths at a garage sale so they could raise money for their share of car pool expense so they could make it to their min wage jobs. That’s not a Mad Max world but it is very unpleasant.

Indeed. I'm well aware of our new economic reality, I live it daily. Most of our economic woes, I think, are not due to peak oil. I'd guess that a combination of automation, globalization, and neo-liberal policies account for most of the Third Worldization of advanced industrial nations, particularly the US. The price of oil is just a nice cherry on top, a partially engaged parking brake on an already sluggish old truck with a bad engine and a slippy transmission.

At least for now. It ain't gonna get any better from here on out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')riving in this morning I thought about a global metric to make the same point. I just did a rough estimate: in the last 7 years the world’s oil consumers have transferred about $15 TRILLION to the oil producers. Had oil remained at the same price as it was for the 15 years from the late 80’s through the 90’s they would have paid about $5 TRILLION.

Granted the world economy is huge and metrics even in the range of tens of $billions are relatively small. But the increase in oil prices have reduced the amount of monies available for social service programs, home and business loans, salaries, etc. by $10 TRILLION in recent years.

That $10 trillion over the last 7 years is ~2% of global GDP annualized. A not insignificant figure, particularly given the lackluster economic performance of the advanced industrial regions, where every hundredth of a percentage counts. This price spike in oil is not the cause of our economic situation, but it's certainly an important factor, one that most mainstream analysts overlook.

From a long-term perspective, this price spike seems far more significant than the 1973 oil embargo. What do you think?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') and the other oil producers obviously have nothing to complain about.

I'll PM you with my PO Box, feel free to write a generous check---we hippie organic farmer back to the landers have to eat, too :lol:
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Alternatives to Oil and Taking Action

Postby Rune » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 23:54:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'R')une, machine intelligence? Like Siri? Serious? Can Siri make my bed? Wash the dishes? Sirious?


I can't tell you how many times I've told Siri she's a freakin' moron.

My group is experimenting with neuromorphic chips. The stuff you read about in both popular science rags and in the press would probably make Carl all hot. But, don't believe the hype. Not to say that we can't do some useful things with learning machines but the domain has to be fairly narrow. Generalized artificial intelligence is a pipe dream.


No, it's more specialized stuff. The progeny of IBMs Watson, sedt to invade medicine and all sorts of other areas.

Also, what the NSA is doing out in Utah with that monstrous data analysis center.

Machines can analyze huge volumes of data that the human mind is incapable of perceiving. Then, with human/machine collaboration, the interpretation and utility of that sort of thing can actually ake overall productivity rise without any accompanying employment.

I can't do the subject justice in a post, but economist tyler cowan did in his book "Average Is Over". I'm noticing more and more commentary on it.

It's a trend which we will continue to see probably throughout our lives. Eventually, human brain equivalency WILL arrive. But the effects of machine intelligence will be felt long, long before that. It's beginning to be felt now.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron