456 comments on The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
456 comments on The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Our disagreement then is the disagreement between the party of hope and the party of that dislikes its own kind. Your Judgement then is not about nuclear technology, but a judgement against the human species.
Irrespective of the philosophical implications of whether man is ready for unconstrained power, I found this to be a very educational and fascinating article. Thankyou.
"dislikes its own kind."
Is someone who refuses to give a live chain saw to an infant someone who hates infants?
You are clearly reacting emotionally and non-rationally to my points. Take a walk in the woods, then come back and maybe we can discuss it further.
And please note that I thought the technology was potentially useful, just for a different main purpose than what you propose.
I find it interesting the way you took what he said and made it into something else. I suggest that you re-read what he actually said. He makes a valid point even if you do not like what he is pointing to.
An excellent article and probably about the most promising alternative energy source that exists today. Failing the development of controlled nuclear fusion, thorium breeder reactors would appear to be almost as good in terms of fuel security and environmental impact. Unfortunately, the more useful an energy source is, the more that it permits the exploitation of other resources and thus damage to the environment. That is after all, exactly what harnessed energy sources are intended to do.
This discussion brings us back to the problem that we live within perpetual growth machine, on a finite land space, with finite material and biological resources. We therefore face the problem that giving human beings a fantastic new energy source, would allow growth based economic systems to reap even more damage on the planet. This is a fundamental problem with any living system that grows within a finite environment. It can either choose to reach a stable state, or it can continue to grow until every resource is consumed and die off like bacteria in petri dish. Unfortunately, a cooperative Power Down or species-wide self-limitation would appear to be impossible in the present global political environment. The only way out of this paradox is for humanity to collectively agree to reduce population size (as China has taken steps towards achieving) and allow continued per capita economic growth. This would allow individual living standards to expand even as total GDP remained static. Gradual progression of technology, the development of compact agricultural systems, car-free cities, integrated waste management, etc, would allow environmental impact to gradually decline. Such a development would require the leadership of a body like the UN.
Ultimately, growth would appear to be an endemic characteristic of all living species and is only held at bay by physical restraint. This does not bode well for a species that is limited to the surface of only one planet. For this reason I think that anyone within post-oil community that still clings to the idea of economic growth or even technological growth for humanity in the future, either hasn't thought the problem through and is relying upon blind hope, or must be a space travel enthusiast.
The thorium electricity is clean for all practical purposes. A clean, abundant power source will enable us to do more with less resources and less pollution.
False. If you study some demographics you'll realize that urbanization and industrialization leads to much reduced nativity. In much of Europe, the population pyramid is inverted. Also, rich countries have all implemented stricter environmental standards, which poorer countries can't afford.
We can argue about the distant future, but for now, growth and tech is the only hope for humanity and the Earth. Without growth and tech, the population increase won't stop at the projected 9-10 billion, environmental standards won't continue to improve, and all available resources will be utilized by increasingly desperate peoples until collapse. The only way to go is forward, and I'm saddened that you and others strive in the opposite direction, putting your hope in authoritarianism and socialism, which have always proved counterproductive in the real world.
"A clean, abundant power source will enable us to do more with less resources and less pollution"
Ever heard of Jevon's Paradox?
"Without growth and tech, the population increase won't stop at the projected 9-10 billion"
How does that make even the slightest amount of sense?
Jevons' Paradox does not apply when resource constraints are present.
Isn't this nothing more than diminishing returns? Jevons' applies to a point, then declining returns begin to dominate?
Cheers
In OECD economies, it looks like the take back principle that Jevon's describes is only 10-50% depending on the sector and the technology used. So, we can expect 90-50% of the gains in energy efficiency to be net gains. There's not a lot of research on the dynamics of this, so it's not clear what the diminishing returns will be after more efficiency gains are achieved. Higher capital costs of the most efficient products as well as saturation effects (macro economic and micro/individual) appear to limit Jevon's Paradox as well. Case studies are rare for such an important subject, though.
You keep saying that.
Do you have any examples?
It sounds illogical.
Resource constraints are always present.
The example is the original context: Coal in the UK.
Coal mining is more efficient than ever in the UK, but the amount produced is lower than it used to be, as there is not that much coal left there. The UK consumes 1/3 as much coal as it did in 1965.
So coal mining became so efficient that it caused UK coal production to decrease?
Crazy.
(And this is because EROI fan Margaret Thatcher closed the coal mines because of those horrible low EROI coalminer/strikers demanded subsidies and the increasing availability of higher EROEI North Sea gas and ability to get higher EROEI coal shipped from Australia and South Africa.)
Jevon's paradox is alive and well.
Well, as I said, the data is quite clear-cut. Take a look at this gapminder graph.
Jeppen,
Have you lost your mind? Sustainable growth is a patent oxymoron and technology is most certainly not energy.
The human resource is a prime economic input. What faster way to deplete the earth's remaining non-renewable resources than to continue the practice of growing economies and populations?
Out of curiosity, what mechanism do you forsee that will force the global population to level off at 9-10 billion? If such a mechanism exists, what would be the negative ramifactions of throwing the switch now? Is 9-10 billion some form of optimum number? If so how was it derived?
Anyone got an idea of the dissipation involved with transitioning virtually all global energy requirements to electricity? Would ramping up all electric power consumption to support 9-10 billion people provide enough dissipation to continue global warming? Just curious.
I didn't say anything about "sustainable growth". I said growth is our only hope, and I mean short-term, say 50-100 years. Please realise that the energy used to create a certain amount of GDP (in constant dollars) has fallen about 25% in the last 15 years. Arguably, growth might not be sustainable forever, but for the next few centuries, it most definitely is.
The mechanism is empowerment and urbanization of women, mostly. Tech, growth and efficient agriculture makes people move into cities, get educations, get careers and so on. That makes birth rates drop like stones.
The negative ramifications of empowering women faster? Well, none, except for the odd conservative backlash, such as the Iran revolution. Please be my guest and fast-track this development.
No, 9-10 billion is not an optimal number. It is what demographers see as the most plausible peak. (Demographic forecast is not as uncertain as one might think. If current social and economic trends continue, this is what we'll get. If economic growth abates considerably, however, population growth will continue.)
Dissipation is not and will never be a cause of significant global warming. It is the trapping of heat that creates global warming, not the antropogenic creation of heat. Our creation of heat will always be insignificant compared to heat from the sun and from the Earth's core.
chitowncarl You have elevated a questionable supposition to the the status of unquestionable truth. Many resources are not in short supply, and can be substituted for resources which are. Recycling can also fill resource gaps. There is enough recoverable thorium to powere the world economy. Long term hlobal warming is unlikely because of Peak oil, Peak natural gas, and peak coal Thus whether yu think that the primary problem is peak fossal fuels, or anthropogenic global warming, the fact is that LFTR technology has the potential to rapidely replace fossil fuels, and to bring abundant energy to a world populatiob of 9 to 10 billion people.
Population growth is very much a function of energy availabilioty. many high energy societies see populations growth stop completely, and even population decline, thus a high energy global economy would be an economy that would not see population exploding.
Charles Barton: Population growth is very much a function of energy availabilioty. many high energy societies see populations growth stop completely, and even population decline, thus a high energy global economy would be an economy that would not see population exploding.
Speaking of questionable suppositions, that is grand one. Would you care to provide historical evidence of this function.
BTW the rates in the Stop Gap graph are misleading as regards gross increase, which is the number the planet and stressed communities feel each and every day, as the percentage rates of increase are now factoring upon such large bases. The 'gains' are also offset by the fact that as wealth might divert effort from reproduction it re-aligns it toward consumption.
Essentially, human behavior all comes down to the socially dominant, and thus re-inforced purpose(s) for living. It used to be family, and hence high birth rates, although only in agrarian societies, especially disenfranchised ones. Now the benchmark is wealth and status at the top end, chaotically desperate struggle at the bottom, and a mix of the two across the middle as people look both up and down from their rung on an increasingly slippery and isolating ladder.
You'll no doubt cite efficiency gains as an offset to consumption increase, but these efficiency measurements are always limited and linear evaluations. Unless people are pinned down and actively stifled each extra one will have considerable impact on the other people and the landscape around them.
Your simplistically confident view of the mechanics and trajectories in play is tragically common in the managerial class. Gaia help us.