[ExI] Written for another list

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> I think liquid fluoride thorium reactors are a much better bet and we
>> already have the technology or nearly so, we've had most of it since the
>>
>
> > We don't have the technology.


That is just untrue, we've had the technology for some time. Granted it was
a small experimental reactor of only 7.4 megawatts but the Molten Salt
Reactor Experiment (MSRE) at Oak Ridge operated successfully from 1965 to
1969. There were 2 reasons this approach was not pursued and why it was a
miracle they even managed to scrape together enough money to build it in
the first place:

1) Unlike all Uranium reactors Thorium reactors do not produce Plutonium
which can be used to make bombs; at the time this was perceived as a major
disadvantage, that is seen by many as less of a disadvantage today.

2) For 30 years Admiral Rickover was the Tsar  of reactor development in
the USA, when he found that a Uranium Pressurized Water Reactor would work
pretty well in a submarine he called a halt to all other types of reactor
development because he thought it would be a distraction to the task at
hand, making a fleet on nuclear submarines. He didn't even want research on
other types of Uranium reactors much less Thorium. So if you wanted to make
a reactor to power a city you had to scale up a small submarine reactor to
gargantuan dimensions, and in the last few decades we've discovered to our
sorrow it just does not scale up well. Because of Rickover nuclear reactor
technology has been like a fly caught in amber and remained nearly
unchanged for half a century.

> If you don't believe me, try calling Areva, and order one.


Try ordering a new nuclear reactor from anyone to be placed anywhere in the
USA of ANY design, it's virtually impossible for reasons that have nothing
to do with science or technology.

> Germany is at 25.1% renewable electricity


That figure sounds nice, but over 30% of the renewable electricity comes
from bio-mass which is just turning food into fuel, a pretty bad idea. And
environmentalists complain about the rest, they hate dams and yet about 20%
of that renewable energy comes from hydro power. About 40% comes from wind
power but the cost is so high it would never be economical without big
government tax subsidies, and environmentalists say it disrupts global wind
patterns, is noisy, and kills cute little birds. And 6% comes from solar
but that form of energy is so dilute you need vast (and no doubt
environmentally sensitive) amounts of land, and it too is not economical
without big government subsidies. Environmentalists say there are just too
many people on this small planet so the best thing would be if we just
froze in the dark.

By the way, technically energy from Thorium is not renewable but its
potential is so huge it might as well be.

> Few technologies can do that kind of scaling. Nuclear is not one of them.
>

You could be right but If so the reasons are cultural and not economic,
scientific, or technological.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120802/41c894a0/attachment.html>