Using breeder reactors, which are technically feasible, the nuclear uranium ores would last roughly more than 5 centuries. So, the technology described here, which removes existing CO2 from air to make synthetic fuel is not uranium limited. That’s clear.

Yes. To implement this technology will require an investment in new reactor technolgies. But, new technologies are developed all the time. New reactors can be designed and built. I realize this causes you angst but that is no reason not to build them.

It’s clear you don’t want these to be built for

However, with regard to the topic of Roger’s blog — which is how we might implement the synthetic fule technology– the discussion appears to have gotten us here:

If we invest in new, entirely feasible nuclear technologies, there is plenty of uranium available to generate synthetic fuel using the emerging technology Roger discussed.

This could potentially greatly not only reduce the amount of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere, but remove CO2 we have already reduced. This could potentially eliminate the hazards of global warming.

Unless good reasons not to implement this technologies can be advanced, the synthetic fuel technology would seem promising. We should invest both in the new technology to develop synthetic fuels and develop better technologies to use nuclear fuels.

Multiplying that low figure by 100 or so requires a different technology, one with which there is no longer any experience, anywhere in the world, now that FFTF has been demolished.

This is not the place to consider all the ramifications of a variety of different possible ways of using nuclear energy, most of which have never been tried. There are other forums for that.

Goodby on this topic.

How in the world is the issue of nuclear plants coming on line in the next few month’s relevant to the emerging technology described here, which isn’t likely to be ramped up in two months? (Answer: It’s not.)

And why should readers think the technology Roger describes is not useful because you make vague allusions about things you think you know but for some reason don’t specify in comments?

INEEL tests reactor designs, using DOE money. These are supposedly for commericial reactors.

I personally do not object to a newer design. If nuclear reactors must be used, I would think one of the so-called passively safe designs would be better. (Same problem of fuel shortage, however). My point was that the two or three new constrction nuclear power plants to come before the nucular regulatory commission in the next several months are not innovative designs.

Hanford, for many years, ran an electric power generating reactor onsite. I’m unsure of the current situation.

It is not just the former secretaries. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in an article a few years ago, stated that DOE was the most dysfunctional of the departments of government. Given how dysfunctional DOD is, that is saying a lot! Moreover, I have plenty of sources of information which suggest that engineers at INEEL cut corners and leave serious radiation risks exposed.

Go read about the green run(s) at Hanford.

Anyway, this is far off-topic for this blog, so perhaps it is best to bring the discussion of this topic to a close.

Americans are adopting new untried technologies everyday. Also, the technologiy Roger is discussing in this blog post is a new untried technology — as are many technologies to develpe renewable fuels.

I’m all for new technologies to improve energy efficiency, create energy more efficiently of without generating CO2, sequester carbon, reduce pollution, improve the food supply, make better medicines and all around improve our way of life. If our forbears had refused new technologies we’d still be shivering, naked in caves!

For what it’s worth, the DOE and Hanford have nothing to do with commercial nuclear applications. So, I’m not sure what you think the DOE has to do with commercial energy production. So, I really don’t quite see what argument you are trying to make by connecting issues associated with weapons productions, or Jimmy Carter’s mistakes in dealing with waste to this particular technology..

It appears your main objection to this technology is you don’t like nukes. You haven’t been very clear about your basis for not liking them, other than that you live between Hanford and Rockc flats and have some issues about various former secretaries of energy.

I guess it’s fine for you to have angst, but I don’t see how your angst should preclude our going forward with technologies that help reduce CO2, and thus help prevent warming.

There is not enough uranium, at current prices, using existing nuclear reactor technology.

Unfortunately I previously left off the final phrase. I suppose I was assuming that nobody (at least in the U.S.), is interested in new, untried technologies. This was based in part on the fact that the new nuclear reactors in the planning stage are not even ‘passively safe’ designs, but just basically more old technology.

Fundamentally, the decisions rest with the U.S. Congress. IMO, they haven’t done well regarding energy policy for several decades now. However, I certainly know of many matters which were directly under the administrative control of the Secretary of Energy. There have been many mistakes, risking the lives of many people. Possibly even yours. For such misadministration I have helped take a sequence of secretaries to court. Almost always win. Or so I like to think…

Second, I used to live in Richland, and worked at PNNL. I once walked over waste in one of the K-basins, and have an “atta-boys” plaque for work on 101-SY (AKA the first major-ly hydrogen burping tank.)

The problems with clean up are entirely political, and could be solved if *congress* wished to do so and sustained funding for clean up instead of ramping up the cutting funding in fits and bursts.

I think these political problems could be solved if there was sufficient political will. There has not been.

FWIS, the problem of rampant waste accumulation at K-basin arose because of entirely political decision by Jimmy Carter, which was absolutely totally out of control of the DOE, Hanford engineers or others.

Regarding various potential nuclear power options, I live in between two of the most polluted DOE reactor sites, to the east in Idaho and to the west in Hanford. Based on a 37 year record of trying to force DOE to do the right thing, I fear I cannot view nuclear power generation, especially ‘fast reactor technology’, with anything but trepidation.

Maybe the British, French and Germans know how to do all this safely. It is certain that neither the Canadians nor the Russians nor the Americans do.

“Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years.”

The Wikipedia authors left this bit out.

This is a considerably longer time periods. The uranium limit is not fundamental.

The decision not to use fast reactor technology is entirely political, and could be changed.

Given the urgency of lowering CO2 emissions, while not causing needless economic damage to poor countries (like El Salvador, where I was born) it might be wise to switch.

Of course, I suspect big oil, refineries or oil rich nations, might oppose the switch to nuclear, since it would cut into their profits, but I don’t see protecting the interest of big oil as being as important as lowering the rate we increase CO2 emissions.

That was what I was refering to. Of course, assuming an ability to pay more, I gather there are more uranium reserves. But I’ll not attempt an ROI for such scenerios. Over to you.