Coming Energy problems.....

Less energy = smaller economy

THORP spends more time broken down than actually reprocessing and is mainly used to reprocess waste from Germany and Japan.

Spend the time to find out about Thorium and LFTR's
 
Sponsored Links
Less energy = smaller economy

THORP spends more time broken down than actually reprocessing and is mainly used to reprocess waste from Germany and Japan.

Spend the time to find out about Thorium and LFTR's

Unproven technology, which would need years of development (and money) before deployment. Then there is the building time and cost of a commercial plant on top of that.

New nuclear involves mature technology with designs that are established, which greatly speeds up the process, and reliability.

Some more discussion on thorium here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

It is likely that we will need thorium in the future, but the UK is no position to use it now.

We'll probbaly have two fuel cycles at some point in the future: uranium and thorium, but its a long way off. And we'll still have wind, solar and gas as well, to deal with intermittent demands (although GenIV reactors are meant to be suitable for this in theory).
 
It took 4 years to design, develop and construct a molten salt reactor, it went critical in 1965 and ran until 1969. Admittedly it was using Uranium rather than Thorium but the bottom line is that the ground work has already been done.

I don't disagree that we will probably need to bridge the gap with conventional uranium reactors but the less time spent using them the better due to all the downsides. There's an opportunity for someone to take a world lead in LFTR's. It will probably be China. We no longer have the balls.
 
India and China are exploring throium. There is still a long way to go for developing a viable system. Its one thing getting something to work, its quite another have a standard model that you can economically replicate.

They have the ores, so they might as well. We don't, so we may as well stick with uranium, as its an estalished technology.

However, we are exploring fusion, which you could argue is a much further end game, as at least we know thorium works. But I guess we also know that thorium is unlikely to become a cheap energy source, while fusion has the potential to be.

Meanwhile some numbers for people to consider:

Average world GDP grew by 3.7% in 2011. Lets be nice and say its 3% growth each year.

If we keep this rate of growth, and increase our energy demand accordingly year on year, how long will it be before we equal the total energy that the sun delivers to the Earth?

Well, in 2008 - Total Energy production was 143851TWh (143.85*10^15) or 16.4TW every hour

Total energy hitting the Earth from the sun per year: 1524.24EWh (1524*10^18 ) or 174.0 PW (174*10^15) every hour

Total energy the sun produces every year: 3369096YWh (3369096*10^24), or 384.6 YW (384.6*10^24) every hour

Total output of the milkyway galaxy: 4.38*10^40Wh annually or 5*10^36W every hour

If global energy growth stays at 3% per year, then by the year 2794 our energy demands will exceed what hits the Earth from the sun

By 3985 it will exceed the total output of the sun. We would need a Dyson sphere or the surface of the Earth will be hotter than the surface of the sun. OK, this is a bit silly, but theoretically true.

By 4773 it will exceed the output of the milkyway galaxy!

OK, a bit of fun.

Reasons why this won't happen include:
Population should level out due to urbanisation, development, conflict [delete as appropriate]. Population growth is currently at 1.1%.
We would need to have enough resources to use that much energy
It assumes constant growth, when we don't need to - OECD countries do not grow that much, it is developing countries that is pushing the growth rate, and when they develop up to a certain point, energy demands should level out.
We have to make sure it doesn't.
Add your own reasons on top of these.

Basically, the world needs to work towards a steady state economy. Not easy, and will take generations.
 
Sponsored Links
I've been banging on about a steady state economy ever since I joined this forum. Exponential growth is just plain stupid - so why is it that whenever you hear a politician talking about the economy they use the word 'growth' in every sentence. You can only build a chimney so high, you can only roll a snowball so big or they both crumble. The economy is just the same - and it's crumbling.

Is that Dyson sphere that vacuum with the purple ball at the front?
 
I've been banging on about a steady state economy ever since I joined this forum. Exponential growth is just plain stupid - so why is it that whenever you hear a politician talking about the economy they use the word 'growth' in every sentence. You can only build a chimney so high, you can only roll a snowball so big or they both crumble. The economy is just the same - and it's crumbling.

Is that Dyson sphere that vacuum with the purple ball at the front?
Not quite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
- nice bit of sci-fi.

Economic growth will continue, but there is a limit of course. We will continue to grow economically but the search for a steady state economic model may take as long as fusion to develop, but it should happen, and may even happen naturally eventually.
 
I've been banging on about a steady state economy ever since I joined this forum. Exponential growth is just plain stupid
Indeed it is stupid...It's also the raison d'etre of capitalism...

There is also a system that argues against earning interest (ergo growth) that capitalism despises, and yet you argue against that too...

So where exactly do you stand Joe?
 
We need a world economy that stays static. Stable birth rate, stable use of resources etc. We don't have unlimited oil - and when the cheap stuff has gone - then so will half of the world's population.
 
No it wont Joe- because the worlds population can be helped by Dr Mc'Coys 'neotracin'.
I saw it on Star Treck - around 1979 .
 
If irresponsible countries continue to increase the world's population ad lib, let them get on with it. So long as we don't carry on trying to feed the world.

Even China has the sense to attempt to control their population explosion.
 
We need a world economy that stays static. Stable birth rate, stable use of resources etc.
Indeed...

Could you then tell us how that can possibly happen under capitalism?
 
I toured the JET lab in Abington back in 1984. http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/ They were suggesting we were 20-30 years away from having something to roll out commercially. It's still that far away.... My view is that fusion is a very long shot until we get a grand unified theory in physics.

A LFTR doesn't need the containment of conventional nukes, nor does it need the vast array of backup systems. The guys at Oak Ridge would often switch off power to the reactor and go home for the weekend. The salt plug freeze valve would melt and the fuel would safely drain back into the tanks below. It doesn't work like that with conventional nukes as Fukushima has neatly illustrated.

It sounds like a few people have been reading / watching Chris Martenson's 'Crash Course'? http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
Or if you haven't, you probably should.... Short youtube version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eidQTDjQ5gw

Long version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZbOioGw-d4
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top