Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob
Google Tech Talk May 26, 2009 Presented by Robert Hargraves. Mankind's fossil fuel burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and deadly air pollution. Natural resources are rapidly being depleted by world population growth. Safe, inexpensive energy from the liquid fluoride thorium reactor can stop much global warming and raise prosperity of humanity to adopt US and OECD lifestyles, which include lower, sustainable birth rates.Category: Tech
Author: GoogleTechTalks
Published (on YouTube): 2009-05-27
Published (here): 2012-05-27
Rating: 4.878788; Votes:165
Views: 27370; Favorites: 155
Video duration: 60 min.
«Aim High: Using Thor...» screenshots:
00:29:55
|
00:14:57
|
00:29:55
|
00:44:52
|
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Comments on «Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob»:
constant137 on 2012-04-28
NASA, @chuckkottke, ...
NASA, @chuckkottke, should have a great interest in the LFTR. There is a key material used by all spacecrafts sent beyond the asteroid belt: Pu-238 (see RTG). Obtaining Pu-238 from conventional reactors is very difficult and even the Russians (who sold it to the US in the 90s) gave up. So NASA has a very big problem. Instead in the LFTR, Thorium => Uranium-233 which (not always fissions and) => Pu-238 (1000 Kg of U-233 => 15 Kg of Pu-238). NASA badly needs the LFTR.
raulparolari on 2012-04-21
Take, @chuckkottke, ...
Take, @chuckkottke, the beautiful (no irony) Gemasol power plant in Sevilla, Spain; it takes 185 hectares of rural land, thousands of reflective mirrors, and delivers... 20 MW of (peak) power. Cost: 33$ /watt Now imagine having to power a datacenter in Sweden (like the one for Facebook) which requires 120 MW. You'd need 10 Gemasol centers (for 24 hours ops) and run intercontinental lines to deliver the power... The result, if there is no LFTR? simple: Coal will do the (dirty) job.
raulparolari on 2012-04-21
For @gukonni: ...
For @gukonni: Hargraves is saying that if we want that poor countries like Bangladesh be able to buy LFTR reactors, it is better to sell a 100 MW reactor than a 1GW. He shows in detail the calculation of cost (200 Million $, perhaps financed by the world bank), the monthly repayment, and the cost of KW-hour generated. The second consideration is that smaller (safe) reactors can be placed near where energy is needed without need of long transmission lines. So again a poor country benefits.
RDELAPLAZA on 2012-03-06
Yes; the KEY words ...
Yes; the KEY words to your comment are "IN THE USA" Unfortunately there is the REST OF THE WORLD out there. So while government, corporations and special interests play their stupid games Other big players; China, India, France, Russia and the rest of the world are out there developing the technology; so when they find a solution using thorium, USA is going to be left behind sinking in their own stupidity; to fade away like all the other big empires in history
chuckkottke on 2012-01-02
I think it's a ...
I think it's a mistake to try and commandeer NASA's budget, space exploration is one of the highest achievements we make together. Budgetary shortfalls have many sources, one of which is a lack of progressive tax policy, too much power concentrated in the hands of giant corporations & their principal owners. Giving them more control over the energy sector would further erode our democracies. A diversity of socially responsible businesses & cooperatives + honest government is the answer.
chuckkottke on 2012-01-02
If constructing ...
If constructing safer nuclear plants to replace older units would carry us on into a renewable energy future, this I could see as beneficial to humanity; and for use in navy vessels which rely on nuclear power, if these designs improve safety and reliability, ok. But as a mainstay, I believe the answer is with efficiency and ubiquitous solar and the like. Much of the developing world is toasted with the sun's rays - combine solar desalination plants with solar-electric water pumping ;--).
chuckkottke on 2012-01-02
Once greater ...
Once greater efficiency standards become the norm, in a world with vastly lower energy demands, providing that energy with green energy sources becomes a much more achievable option. Plus, it is much more democratic, since energy produced from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and biomass can be done by a multitude of businesses or individuals or groups, decreasing the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
chuckkottke on 2012-01-02
To begin with, ...
To begin with, let's examine the assumption that energy use correlates to improving living standards. The way I see it, 80-90% of the energy we currently produce is wasted in inefficiencies from stem to stern, so let's start there. To incentivise the transition to a green efficiency economy, we need honest government that works for a well educated & informed citizenry. And the way to achieve that is by limiting the money flowing into politics, establishing fair contests for office.as a right.
gukonni on 2011-12-18
He states 100 MW ...
He states 100 MW plants versus (economies of scale) 1 GW plants are integral in a production environment with competitive suppliers and rapid turnover on the production line. He sees these smaller units facilitate "economies" as the technology develops. What exactly was he meaning to say? He lost me. Also in another point of his talk he refers to the transmission losses that're apparent when you have large units. This is because the larger units are serving more people. But is this misleading?
gukonni on 2011-12-18
He "pleads" for a ...
He "pleads" for a national energy program to reroute some of hte money in NASA to thorium energy R&D. But why can't the private sector do this? If thorium is so wonderful as he argues here then why aren't the private companies doing the R&D to commercialize this?
gukonni on 2011-12-18
According to his ...
According to his diagram, there's about 800 years of thorium storage and reserve in the US to power the country. But in one of his earlier slides, he states that there's enough thorium in lemhi pass to power the US for a milleneum. Is this a simple error?
gukonni on 2011-12-18
He said we need a ...
He said we need a energy source that's cheaper than coal. But he doesn't point out that IF YOU INCLUDE POLLUTION then coal is MORE EXPENSIVE than present technologies! Setting a goal to produce energy more cheaply than coal is unfeasible if you do not include the costs of coal pollution and CO2 emissions. He's setting a goal that we will fail to meet. I respect crazy goals because they challenge us. But this is excessive. It's asking for failure. His attitude is too optimistic.
mabuhayguy on 2011-12-14
SEARCH ON YOUTUBE ...
SEARCH ON YOUTUBE ''HTL GNN with Dr. Posadas: Thorium Reactor, The Alternative Nuke ''
pauliewmusic on 2011-11-10
I would say ...
I would say secularism rather than athesim has a stabilising effect. But prosperity is far more important. Also by implying that people of religion have as many children as possible with disregard for the planets resources you are implying that non religious peoples choice of having less children is based on some conscious decison linked to saving the planets resources. I highly doubt this is ever the reason. It is more to do with personal cost and personal freedoms.
bigpchamber on 2011-10-31
China has announced ...
China has announced they are working on this technology. They probably have been working on it for a number of years. They have had scientists tour the Oak Ridge facility, the Oak Ridge documents a all on the Internet and they probably have tens of thousands of tons of thorium as a bi-product from their rare earth metal mining. If we don't develop the LFTR I'm sure they would love to sell it to us, on their terms of course.
williamb293 on 2011-10-27
Respond to this ...
Respond to this video... He makes an argument that Prosperity stabilizes population. Aithiesism also stabilizes. It is the muslims, and christians that crap out the most kids. They don't care about the destrustion of resources and over population because they think some god is in control
williamb293 on 2011-10-27
China would be ...
China would be interested in this technology.
TheInternetizen on 2011-10-07
If you actually ...
If you actually want to inform yourself, check out some of the ArsTechnica articles that discuss this very thing. Read the comments sections too. Actual scientists write the articles and actual scientists and people who work closely with those scientists post on those articles. But, like I said, only bother if you actually want to inform yourself.
TheInternetizen on 2011-08-13
Prove the world's ...
Prove the world's experts are wrong, then. The onus is on you. An ignorant youtube comment lacking any substantiating proof or evidence of proof is not sufficient, unless your plan here was to make yourself look like a foolish moron.
aloisgault on 2011-06-23
I don't buy global ...
I don't buy global warming, but I do buy finite oil/coal. I also agree that we do not know the long term effects of our "create, use, and trash" technologies. Thorium nuclear looks like it would be the best replacement for the coal generation plants