LFTRs are coming, will they be the answer to climate change?

[Jeremy E.]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-nuclear-reactor-program/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
http://energyfromthorium.com/lftr-overview/
Commercially available in 2030... I'm excited.

[ender]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

[Jeremy E.]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

Perhaps it could be a solution to getting rid of a bunch of fossil fuel plants,
also since 1950 it's been closer to linear growth, exponential is misleading

[frugalnacho]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

What? The energy from the sun dwarfs the energy that is even possible to be generated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined

That's a metric fuck ton of energy. 

The amount of heat generated by humans is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth.  The problem is that we have a blanket of co2 keeping heat in.  And nearly 100% of that heat being kept in is from the sun.  I disagree that the heat by-product of human energy generation will ever be an issue for earth.

[DavidAnnArbor]

These new type of reactors are also a way to get rid of all the nuclear waste being currently stored and convert that waste into energy.

[Telecaster]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

While energy consumption is increasing, it is no where close to exponential.  In fact, it has been leveling off.   

The second part of your statement is a little more complicated.   Indeed if you burn say, petroleum it gives off heat.  But that waste heat by itself isn't the driver of climate change.   The driver is the atmosphere is trapping energy from the sun. The sun's energy falling on Earth completely dwarfs all of the energy generated by mankind.

Keeping that in mind, in the case of renewables like solar or wind, or even hydro (wind and hydro are really just forms of solar energy), it is really just storing solar energy and using it later.  There is no net gain in energy in the form of heat. 

[Metric Mouse]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

While energy consumption is increasing, it is no where close to exponential.  In fact, it has been leveling off.   

The second part of your statement is a little more complicated.   Indeed if you burn say, petroleum it gives off heat.  But that waste heat by itself isn't the driver of climate change.   The driver is the atmosphere is trapping energy from the sun. The sun's energy falling on Earth completely dwarfs all of the energy generated by mankind.

Keeping that in mind, in the case of renewables like solar or wind, or even hydro (wind and hydro are really just forms of solar energy), it is really just storing solar energy and using it later.  There is no net gain in energy in the form of heat.

How is hydro solar? Because it's vaporized and moved to a higher elevation using sunshine?

[nonsequitur]

Keeping that in mind, in the case of renewables like solar or wind, or even hydro (wind and hydro are really just forms of solar energy), it is really just storing solar energy and using it later.  There is no net gain in energy in the form of heat.

That's also true for fossil fuels.  It's just that the storage time was much longer. 

[Metric Mouse]

Keeping that in mind, in the case of renewables like solar or wind, or even hydro (wind and hydro are really just forms of solar energy), it is really just storing solar energy and using it later.  There is no net gain in energy in the form of heat.

That's also true for fossil fuels.  It's just that the storage time was much longer.

Excellent point...

[alsoknownasDean]

Yeah thorium sounds like an interesting idea. I wonder if the plants are cheaper than 'traditional' uranium-based nuclear plants.

My guess would be that power use is steady or declining in developed countries, but increasing in the developing world.

[marty998]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

While energy consumption is increasing, it is no where close to exponential.  In fact, it has been leveling off.   

The second part of your statement is a little more complicated.   Indeed if you burn say, petroleum it gives off heat.  But that waste heat by itself isn't the driver of climate change.   The driver is the atmosphere is trapping energy from the sun. The sun's energy falling on Earth completely dwarfs all of the energy generated by mankind.

Keeping that in mind, in the case of renewables like solar or wind, or even hydro (wind and hydro are really just forms of solar energy), it is really just storing solar energy and using it later.  There is no net gain in energy in the form of heat.

How is hydro solar? Because it's vaporized and moved to a higher elevation using sunshine?

Yes... I had to think about that too. Gravity then does the work for hydro.

Yeah thorium sounds like an interesting idea. I wonder if the plants are cheaper than 'traditional' uranium-based nuclear plants.

My guess would be that power use is steady or declining in developed countries, but increasing in the developing world.

Why do you think it's declining? Energy efficiency? We have more lights, air conditioners, gadgets and appliances than ever before...

[alsoknownasDean]

Yeah thorium sounds like an interesting idea. I wonder if the plants are cheaper than 'traditional' uranium-based nuclear plants.

My guess would be that power use is steady or declining in developed countries, but increasing in the developing world.

Why do you think it's declining? Energy efficiency? We have more lights, air conditioners, gadgets and appliances than ever before...

Maybe increased energy efficiency or closure of energy intensive industries (how many aluminium smelters have shut down in Australia over the last decade).

I'm talking out of my arse though, but IIRC demand on the power grid here has dropped to such a level that speculation is that the Hazelwood (coal) power plant might be shut down in the next year or two. That's probably more due to renewables providing extra supply though.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[Telecaster]

Why do you think it's declining? Energy efficiency? We have more lights, air conditioners, gadgets and appliances than ever before...

I'd have to fire up the Google to be sure, but I'm not sure if energy consumption is declining, but it is not increasing very much, if it at all. 

The reason is your first guess, efficiency.  We're just a lot better at using energy than we used to be.  A good example is the humble refrigerator, which is a major consumer of household electricity.  New refrigerators use about 25% of the electricity of units just say, 25 years ago.   New commercial HVAC and lighting is similarly much more efficient. 

[NoStacheOhio]

Why do you think it's declining? Energy efficiency? We have more lights, air conditioners, gadgets and appliances than ever before...

I'd have to fire up the Google to be sure, but I'm not sure if energy consumption is declining, but it is not increasing very much, if it at all. 

The reason is your first guess, efficiency.  We're just a lot better at using energy than we used to be.  A good example is the humble refrigerator, which is a major consumer of household electricity.  New refrigerators use about 25% of the electricity of units just say, 25 years ago.   New commercial HVAC and lighting is similarly much more efficient.

I think lighting is going to be huge in the next decade. We're just now seeing widespread adoption of LED, and it's going to be a massive reduction in lighting consumption. I just worry that it will cause people to be more careless when it comes to lighting unoccupied rooms.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Perhaps temporarily.

A long term problem with climate change is we are currently using energy at an exponential rate, which ends poorly for the world regardless of how the energy is generated, because it turns out using it gives off heat.

While energy consumption is increasing, it is no where close to exponential.  In fact, it has been leveling off.   

The second part of your statement is a little more complicated.   Indeed if you burn say, petroleum it gives off heat.  But that waste heat by itself isn't the driver of climate change.   The driver is the atmosphere is trapping energy from the sun. The sun's energy falling on Earth completely dwarfs all of the energy generated by mankind.

Keeping that in mind, in the case of renewables like solar or wind, or even hydro (wind and hydro are really just forms of solar energy), it is really just storing solar energy and using it later.  There is no net gain in energy in the form of heat.

How is hydro solar? Because it's vaporized and moved to a higher elevation using sunshine?

Yes... I had to think about that too. Gravity then does the work for hydro.

Every commercial energy source on earth, except nuclear fission, can be thought of as a form of solar energy.

Frankly, if solar doesn't turn out to be the "answer" to climate change, then there probably isn't an answer. I'm still enthusiastic about new fission/fusion technologies, but I doubt they'll supply the bulk of our needs at any point in the foreseeable future.

[NoStacheOhio]

Every commercial energy source on earth, except nuclear fission, can be thought of as a form of solar energy.

Frankly, if solar doesn't turn out to be the "answer" to climate change, then there probably isn't an answer. I'm still enthusiastic about new fission/fusion technologies, but I doubt they'll supply the bulk of our needs at any point in the foreseeable future.

I think they're two separate problems at this point. If we switched over to 100% solar for all energy use on the planet, we'd still have a CO2/temperature problem.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Every commercial energy source on earth, except nuclear fission, can be thought of as a form of solar energy.

Frankly, if solar doesn't turn out to be the "answer" to climate change, then there probably isn't an answer. I'm still enthusiastic about new fission/fusion technologies, but I doubt they'll supply the bulk of our needs at any point in the foreseeable future.

I think they're two separate problems at this point. If we switched over to 100% solar for all energy use on the planet, we'd still have a CO2/temperature problem.

I agree with you on this point, so consider: practically any technology that we employ to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in order to thwart runaway greenhouse effects will consume energy. Thus, it is imperative that we have inexpensive, carbon-neutral energy sources before we can even begin to think about the CO2 problem. So no matter what the specific solution is, it will always hinge on a clean energy source - the very foundation of the solution.

[Jeremy E.]

If they make these LFTRs and everything goes right, then they'll be cleaner/greener energy than solar

[Mississippi Mudstache]

If they make these LFTRs and everything goes right, then they'll be cleaner/greener energy than solar

But riskier. There's always a tradeoff. And there isn't a single nuclear energy technology that has lived up to its initial hype. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.

[Jeremy E.]

If they make these LFTRs and everything goes right, then they'll be cleaner/greener energy than solar

But riskier. There's always a tradeoff. And there isn't a single nuclear energy technology that has lived up to its initial hype. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.

There are a ton of issues they need to find answers too to make it all go right, and if they figure them out, I don't think it'll be much riskier, but figuring out the issues won't be a walk in the park.... there are over 700 scientists in China doing R&D right now, hopefully they'll figure it out

[NoStacheOhio]

Every commercial energy source on earth, except nuclear fission, can be thought of as a form of solar energy.

Frankly, if solar doesn't turn out to be the "answer" to climate change, then there probably isn't an answer. I'm still enthusiastic about new fission/fusion technologies, but I doubt they'll supply the bulk of our needs at any point in the foreseeable future.

I think they're two separate problems at this point. If we switched over to 100% solar for all energy use on the planet, we'd still have a CO2/temperature problem.

I agree with you on this point, so consider: practically any technology that we employ to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in order to thwart runaway greenhouse effects will consume energy. Thus, it is imperative that we have inexpensive, carbon-neutral energy sources before we can even begin to think about the CO2 problem. So no matter what the specific solution is, it will always hinge on a clean energy source - the very foundation of the solution.

Oh absolutely, I guess I was just reacting more to the "solar as an answer to climate change" part of your post than the overall message. I fear we're too focused on the current consumption side of the problem, and that it needs to be balanced with a "what the hell are you going to do about the damage we've already done?" side.

[Jack]

Oh absolutely, I guess I was just reacting more to the "solar as an answer to climate change" part of your post than the overall message. I fear we're too focused on the current consumption side of the problem, and that it needs to be balanced with a "what the hell are you going to do about the damage we've already done?" side.

It's the law of holes: "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

Then you start worrying about how to climb out.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Oh absolutely, I guess I was just reacting more to the "solar as an answer to climate change" part of your post than the overall message. I fear we're too focused on the current consumption side of the problem, and that it needs to be balanced with a "what the hell are you going to do about the damage we've already done?" side.

It's the law of holes: "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

Then you start worrying about how to climb out.

^this

[Guses]

Does anyone know if groups are seriously working on carbon sequestration and or reducing solar intake?

Looking at the PPM of CO2 rising in exponential fashion is giving me literal panic attacks.

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Every commercial energy source on earth, except nuclear fission, can be thought of as a form of solar energy.

Frankly, if solar doesn't turn out to be the "answer" to climate change, then there probably isn't an answer. I'm still enthusiastic about new fission/fusion technologies, but I doubt they'll supply the bulk of our needs at any point in the foreseeable future.

Yeah and nuclear fission is really a poor man's fusion which is what drives the sun. So, technically, all the energy on earth is related to fusion or fission.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Yes.

[ncornilsen]

Oh absolutely, I guess I was just reacting more to the "solar as an answer to climate change" part of your post than the overall message. I fear we're too focused on the current consumption side of the problem, and that it needs to be balanced with a "what the hell are you going to do about the damage we've already done?" side.

It's the law of holes: "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

Then you start worrying about how to climb out.

But there might be an escape hatch just a few more inches down!

[Metric Mouse]

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Yes.

Doesn't matter if it's acknowledged or not. It's kinda too late to stop some of the more serious effects of climate change.  There's already enough locked in to really shake things up on this little blue ball.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Yes.

Doesn't matter if it's acknowledged or not. It's kinda too late to stop some of the more serious effects of climate change.  There's already enough locked in to really shake things up on this little blue ball.

True, but when you're driving towards a brick wall, it makes a difference how soon you let off the gas.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Back in February a 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court put Obama's Clean Power Plan on hold, which would have curtailed carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. Let's hope the Democrats retake the Senate so that the Supreme Court will approve this regulation of carbon emissions. And if the Democrats take the House of Representatives an infrastructure bill could be passed that hopefully would include thorium reactor research and implementation.

[Jack]

Let's hope the Democrats retake the Senate so that the Supreme Court will approve this regulation of carbon emissions.

Let's not. The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. If something's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional regardless of who controls the Senate!

Instead, let's hope the Democrats retake the Senate so that they can amend the Clean Power Plan to pass Constitutional muster, if necessary. (I say "if necessary" because the Court didn't rule on the merits of the case; it merely granted a stay halting implementation until the actual court cases are resolved -- the EPA could still ultimately win with the law as-is!)

If it is ever valid to hope for changes in the Supreme Court due to party changes in the executive or legislative branches, it should only be in the case where you're hoping for removal of existing partisan bias, not for replacement with your favored partisan bias.

[tonysemail]

i think he's saying - let's have senators do their job of approving or rejecting supreme court justice nominees.

a functioning senate would be nice.

[Jack]

i think he's saying - let's have senators do their job of approving or rejecting supreme court justice nominees.

a functioning senate would be nice.

I know what he's saying; I'm complaining about the fact that senators approve or reject based on partisan ideology rather than jurisprudence.

[DavidAnnArbor]

The Supreme Court Decision to stay the Clean Power Plan was decided upon in a 5-4 conservative vs. liberal split. Jurisprudence is open to interpretation as is the Constitution.

[Guses]

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Yes.

Doesn't matter if it's acknowledged or not. It's kinda too late to stop some of the more serious effects of climate change.  There's already enough locked in to really shake things up on this little blue ball.

:(

How can we live with that?

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Yes.

Doesn't matter if it's acknowledged or not. It's kinda too late to stop some of the more serious effects of climate change.  There's already enough locked in to really shake things up on this little blue ball.

:(

How can we live with that?

Do you propose an alternative?

[Guses]

I am just asking, literally, how people live with that on their minds? I am suffering from anxiety every time I think about this.

Would carbon sequestration work at all?

[AshStash]

Does anyone know if groups are seriously working on carbon sequestration and or reducing solar intake?

re: Carbon sequestration--yes, they are.

Source: I did my PhD research (on thorium compounds, incidentally) in a research group where many of my coworkers were hard at work researching materials for carbon capture and storage. So the major funding bodies are putting some money into it and scientists are working on it. Now what the timeline is for any of this research to actually start storing carbon in climate effecting amounts, I don't know.

[Jack]

I am just asking, literally, how people live with that on their minds? I am suffering from anxiety every time I think about this.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/

TL;DR: If there are any concrete actions you can take, such as having a sustainable lifestyle yourself and lobbying others (and/or government) to do the same, then by all means, do them. But everything else that isn't actionable on your part is not worth worrying about.

[Guses]

I am just asking, literally, how people live with that on their minds? I am suffering from anxiety every time I think about this.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/

TL;DR: If there are any concrete actions you can take, such as having a sustainable lifestyle yourself and lobbying others (and/or government) to do the same, then by all means, do them. But everything else that isn't actionable on your part is not worth worrying about.

Yeah, I know, I know. But my lizard brain is freaking out.

It's like if you were on a sinking ship. Can you really just say "whelp it's beyond my circle of control?" and enjoy your last moments?

[Jack]

I am just asking, literally, how people live with that on their minds? I am suffering from anxiety every time I think about this.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/

TL;DR: If there are any concrete actions you can take, such as having a sustainable lifestyle yourself and lobbying others (and/or government) to do the same, then by all means, do them. But everything else that isn't actionable on your part is not worth worrying about.

Yeah, I know, I know. But my lizard brain is freaking out.

It's like if you were on a sinking ship. Can you really just say "whelp it's beyond my circle of control?" and enjoy your last moments?

Well, the threat of a sinking ship is much more immediate and concrete. To be honest, I don't expect to be personally harmed by climate change, so that makes it easier.

However, yes: I'd like to think that -- if there were really nothing left to do, such as bailing or searching for life preservers -- I'd have the strength of will to go out like the band.

[Metric Mouse]

Are we waiting for cities to be submerged before acknowledging that there is a serious issue coming in the next decade(s)?

Yes.

Doesn't matter if it's acknowledged or not. It's kinda too late to stop some of the more serious effects of climate change.  There's already enough locked in to really shake things up on this little blue ball.

True, but when you're driving towards a brick wall, it makes a difference how soon you let off the gas.

It might make a difference. But no one is even suggesting we hit the brakes, or even take our foot off the gas. Some people have rolled their windows down, hoping to increase the drag. Some really concerned citizens are even sticking their shirts out the widow. But we're still plowing forward, maybe even picking up speed.   While in absolute terms speed of impact will matter, relatively speaking it's gonna be one hell of a mess no matter what.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

It might make a difference. But no one is even suggesting we hit the brakes, or even take our foot off the gas. Some people have rolled their windows down, hoping to increase the drag. Some really concerned citizens are even sticking their shirts out the widow. But we're still plowing forward, maybe even picking up speed.   While in absolute terms speed of impact will matter, relatively speaking it's gonna be one hell of a mess no matter what.

OK, let me belabor the analogy just a bit: I consider "taking the foot off the gas" to be switching to carbon-neutral energy sources. And yes, many people, politicians even, are trying very hard to switch to renewable energy sources as soon as possible, while the entrenched fossil fuel lobbyists and climate change deniers do everything in their power to mislead the plebiscite and obstruct the process. It's pointless to have serious discussions about "hitting the brakes" (employing carbon sequestration technologies) until our energy sources stop producing massive amounts of CO2. Yeah, we need to research it, and we are, but it's a pipe dream at this point, whereas solar, wind, and nuclear power - and the transportation technologies that can make use of these power sources - are not. There will be a mess, but we can still do something, therefore we should do something.

[Papa Mustache]

https://www.ft.com/content/09a1f984-9a1d-11e6-8f9b-70e3cabccfae