permaculture

[Chris Lumpkin <clumpkin@gmail.com>]

I understand why LFTR has been considered as an alternative to some current
polluting fossil fuel methods of generating electricity, or replacement
technologies that are not yet efficient enough to compete. I am no
scientist, but based on my research the safety issues are:

- Waste containment: there is still radioactive waste produced by Thorium
breeder reactions
- Proliferation risks: the reprocessing may produce materials which can be
used to make weapons
- Safety concerns to workers: many of which are not even completely
understood, since this technology has only been done in short term demo

The disadvantages listed here include many "potentials" and "maybes":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

Again, no reason not to explore the possibilities, as any solution to our
looming population/energy crisis will require diverse solutions. However, I
don't believe we could possibly build an operational commercial-scale LFTR
for decades.

>From a permaculture perspective, I am seeking technologies that are not
only "sustainable", but regenerative, life-creating. Anything that consumes
fuel that must be extracted, and produces waste in quantities that build up
faster than they break down, does not meet my criteria. Most Americans
wouldn't blink an eye at the trade-offs for Thorium breeder reactors to
keep their XBoxes running, but I would rather reduce my footprint than
invest in yet another compromise. From a planetary perspective, this is
just another credit card, maybe with lower interest than the one we are
running up now.

Also, let's not forget that the real looming crisis facing our current
lifestyle paradigm is not a shortage of electricity, but of liquid fuels
for transportation and food production. We have serious issues with energy
storage, of which nothing, I mean NOTHING, compares to the storage capacity
good old gas and diesel. By the time you got enough LFTRs online to carry
the baseload power for a nation, I believe we would hit other "peaks".

I have a strong preference for power sources which can be done on a smaller
scale, in a distributed manner which loses less efficiency to batteries and
transmission lines. I think high tech solutions like LFTR have their place,
but I would rather save space-age technology for getting us into space,
rather than wasting limited materials and racking up waste so we can
refrigerate our food and cool our 2500 square foot homes! I don't think
that makes me a Luddite, quite the contrary, I want us to figure out how to
feed ourselves so we can explore space! No free lunches...




On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Eisenhauer
<eisenhauerdesign@earthlink.net>wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>