permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

Feedback on this sent to me:

"Thorium reactors have a much smaller footprint than do either solar or
wind arrays. That is, you get more bang for the amount of land displaced.
Also, thorium supplies have built up vastly in excess of any current use
for the stuff. So it's so cheap now it's virtually an undesirable waste
product."

"There are other, competing Gen IV designs out there now,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=_-BXg18fAIk&NR=1

"..and interest is picking up rapidly. So it's certainly time for people
who can work with this technology to get in on the ground floor. Funding
sources like Bill Gates should be all over this stuff. Estimated
development costs for a full-scale pilot project are ballparked at no more
than one billion $$."

"The nice thing about this kind of power is that the fuel cycles, and
re-creates itself. Once you get your reaction started, it only takes tiny
amounts of feed-in to sustain it forever. So we've very nearly arrived at
the point they predicted back in 1946-- where electric power would be so
cheap it wouldn't have to be metered."

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Chris Lumpkin <clumpkin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thorium is far from a panacea, unproven and plenty of safety issues.


Why is it not a panacea and what are the safety issues?


> It is also, at the end of the day, just another technology based on
> extraction.
> Dr. Tom Murphy has a great breakdown of nuclear options from a
> sustainability perspective here:
> http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/
>
> and a great discussion of "The Energy Trap", which prevents us from
> investing in tomorrow's solutions when today's energy is scarce:
> http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
>
> -Chris
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Glenn Gall <glenngall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Makes one wonder why everyone on earth is worrying about global
> > warming, and thinking we're running out of energy, when we have a
> > technology requiring relatively common fuels (enough so that we can say
> > there's an infinite supply for the next few centuries), ….”
> >
> > Thorium won't stop global warming  Or flooding, drought, extinction,
> > desertification, deforestation, hunger, acidified oceans etc., for that
>

That's not the point. Those problems can and should be solved other ways
but cheap electric energy would still help with this.


> > matter.   The globe is already warm, and will warm another degree F, no
> > matter the energy source, unless there is a lot more life in the
> biosphere
> > and soil, and in a hurry.  The other effects are already present, and
> will
> > also worsen without more life to stabilize our earth.
> >
> > Thorium may or may not satisfy many of our energy needs, but it won't
> bring
> > a planet back to life. I'm willing to discuss the possibility of thorium
> > energy, but but as an energy fix.  Don't hype it as an earth-system fix.
>

No one said that but it still would help.

Thorium might go a long way toward solving our energy needs.
It could help make insulating materials, solar panels and wind energy
devices more affordable for everyone.


> > More life, a massive amount, is critical, no matter all the other good
> and
> > necessary things we do.  How much more is anybody's guess.  And how we do
> > it ...?


Replace conventional/gmo/chemical fertilizer/synthetic pesticide
agriculture with natural agriculture. Stop herbicide application and gmo
crop seed use.


> It will need to be much more than reducing our carbon footprints,
> > much more than personal responsibility.
> >
> > And much more than thorium.
>


> > Glenn
>