permaculture

["Eisenhauer" <eisenhauerdesign@earthlink.net>]

As a designer I consider the nuclear reactor to be a very poor concept given 
the fundamental issue of maintenance.  If you can't leave a machine 
unattended without it becoming a dirty bomb that creates a dead zone for 
hundreds of miles around it in perpetuity then it does not fit with our human 
condition.  From the funding perspective it fits into the category of public 
debt for private profit which explains why it has gone forward despite the  
overwhelming disapproval of the general public in the face of one disaster 
after another.  One billion dollars would certainly fund the development of 
photovoltaic roof shingles and siding for existing homes!
If we are really interested in managing our energy needs we would address the 
base of the pyramid.  I would think that wasting 70% of the electrical energy 
generated to the resistance encountered in transmission  would put 
centralized power generation last on the list of desirable options.  I 
suspect there is more of a power issue here than simply generating 
electricity.  Transportation is another dinosaur brought to us by the power 
of monopolies.

Steven 


-----Original Message-----
From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
[mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence London
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:21 PM
To: permaculture
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) Technology 
- Thorium Fueled Power Plants

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
>
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
message archives:  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
Google message archive search:
site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring] Avant Geared  
http://www.avantgeared.com