Comments on: The Clean Energy Gap http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Luke Lea http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062&cpage=1#comment-13007 Luke Lea Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:07:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062#comment-13007 If the relationship between CO2 concentrations and greenhouse effect is non-linear (as Lubos Motl points out repeatedly) why is a ppm target so important, or even meaningful? Most of the effect has already occured. If the relationship between CO2 concentrations and greenhouse effect is non-linear (as Lubos Motl points out repeatedly) why is a ppm target so important, or even meaningful? Most of the effect has already occured.

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062&cpage=1#comment-12999 Mark Bahner Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:39:23 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062#comment-12999 Hi Raven, You write: "Building Nuclear Plants is one thing. Finding the fuel is another..." The types of reactors I was proposing weren't based on conventional uranium fuel. Instead, I was proposing: 1) A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, which is fueled with thorium: http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2007/01/uranium-vs-thorium-mining-processing.html 2) A "Traveling Wave" reactor, which is fueled with depleted uranium: www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/ Neither would require the uranium ore mining of the type in the British Columbia ban you cited. So finding fuel for the two types of reactor I suggested won't be a problem. :-) Now we just need to build 5,000 each in the next 40 years! ;-) Hi Raven,

You write:

“Building Nuclear Plants is one thing. Finding the fuel is another…”

The types of reactors I was proposing weren’t based on conventional uranium fuel. Instead, I was proposing:

1) A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, which is fueled with thorium:

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2007/01/uranium-vs-thorium-mining-processing.html

2) A “Traveling Wave” reactor, which is fueled with depleted uranium:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/

Neither would require the uranium ore mining of the type in the British Columbia ban you cited. So finding fuel for the two types of reactor I suggested won’t be a problem. :-)

Now we just need to build 5,000 each in the next 40 years! ;-)

]]> By: Raven http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062&cpage=1#comment-12990 Raven Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:04:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062#comment-12990 Building Nuclear Plants is one thing. Finding the fuel is another: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=e7fde005-364a-4ede-9c9c-8cdfeac172ed The [British Columbia] government has slapped a ban on exploration for uranium, outlawed any development of known deposits and imposed a "no registration reserve" to ensure no future claims include rights to the mineral. Building Nuclear Plants is one thing. Finding the fuel is another:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=e7fde005-364a-4ede-9c9c-8cdfeac172ed

The [British Columbia] government has slapped a ban on exploration for uranium, outlawed any development of known deposits and imposed a “no registration reserve” to ensure no future claims include rights to the mineral.

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062&cpage=1#comment-12989 Mark Bahner Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:33:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062#comment-12989 "To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we’ll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now." I'm not a big fan of federal-government-funded technology demonstrations, but it seems like it might be worthwhile for the U.S. federal government to support building 10-100 MWe demonstration plants for a liquid fluoride thorium reactor or a traveling wave reactor. But obviously, nothing the U.S. federal government (or private industry) is likely to do will result in the U.S. building 1000-2000 fission reactors in the next 40 years (roughly "our share" of the 10,000* worldwide). *P.S. I was very surprised at the 10,000 number, so I did some calculations myself. The present worldwide fleet of 436 nuclear reactors has a capacity of 372 GW. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html If I use a capacity factor of 80 percent, I actually get ~15,000 reactors needed for 10 TW. Of course, the hypothetical 10,000 could be larger than the current fleet. But needless to say, even the 10,000 reactors is a staggeringly large number, and seems unlikely to even be approached. P.P.S. I second jae's applause; in all the pages of the IPCC AR4, is there such a basic and important analysis as was done by Nate Lewis? “To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we’ll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now.”

I’m not a big fan of federal-government-funded technology demonstrations, but it seems like it might be worthwhile for the U.S. federal government to support building 10-100 MWe demonstration plants for a liquid fluoride thorium reactor or a traveling wave reactor.

But obviously, nothing the U.S. federal government (or private industry) is likely to do will result in the U.S. building 1000-2000 fission reactors in the next 40 years (roughly “our share” of the 10,000* worldwide).

*P.S. I was very surprised at the 10,000 number, so I did some calculations myself. The present worldwide fleet of 436 nuclear reactors has a capacity of 372 GW.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

If I use a capacity factor of 80 percent, I actually get ~15,000 reactors needed for 10 TW. Of course, the hypothetical 10,000 could be larger than the current fleet. But needless to say, even the 10,000 reactors is a staggeringly large number, and seems unlikely to even be approached.

P.P.S. I second jae’s applause; in all the pages of the IPCC AR4, is there such a basic and important analysis as was done by Nate Lewis?

]]> By: Números verdes « PlazaMoyua.org http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062&cpage=1#comment-12981 Números verdes « PlazaMoyua.org Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:35:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062#comment-12981 [...] [-->] de Prometheus, de un post de Roger Pielke [...] [...] [-->] de Prometheus, de un post de Roger Pielke [...]

]]> By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062&cpage=1#comment-12971 jae Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:56:45 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5062#comment-12971 Hooray! Those are the kind of facts that everyone needs to face. And the politicians' job is to explain how their proposed programs will accomodate those facts. That would be the honest way to do it, anyway. But you probably won't see these types of facts discussed by the politicians, because they are too daunting and immediately reveal the idiocy of their strategies (which probably really have nothing to do with the environment or "climate change," anyway). They are content with slogans, magic, and "change we can all believe in." At least some of the Cal Tech guys are thinking. Hooray! Those are the kind of facts that everyone needs to face. And the politicians’ job is to explain how their proposed programs will accomodate those facts. That would be the honest way to do it, anyway. But you probably won’t see these types of facts discussed by the politicians, because they are too daunting and immediately reveal the idiocy of their strategies (which probably really have nothing to do with the environment or “climate change,” anyway). They are content with slogans, magic, and “change we can all believe in.” At least some of the Cal Tech guys are thinking.

]]>