tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post6365563238650322719..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: Confessions of a Nuclear Blogger: Part IICharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-91845109699303533142009-07-27T18:35:13.283-05:002009-07-27T18:35:13.283-05:00Charles,
It has been fascinating to watch your vi...Charles,<br /><br />It has been fascinating to watch your vision come into sharp focus over the last few years. I think you have got it right, excellent job.<br /><br />To be conservative my recommendation is still to level the playing field and build demonstration plants of every technology and let the marketplace pick the best technology. <br /><br />http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4961#comment-459021<br /><br />Baring an unforeseeable breakthrough I am confident that your vision would come to dominate a level playing field.<br /><br />The huge amount of money being spent to mass produce impractical expensive intermittent energy systems is a total waste. Even if the U.S. could somehow reduce its CO2 emissions to zero with wind and solar, the developing world would soon eat up those savings. Developing countries cannot afford to build those systems and the backup plants they require. The money wasted on these impractical systems could pay for the R&D program.<br /><br />U.S. energy policy should be focused on a single goal.<br /><br />Develop alternative energy systems that can be mass produced to provide unlimited supplies of clean safe reliable energy at a cost less than the cost of fossil fuel.<br /><br />Once that happens nations around the world will scramble to acquire that technology as fast as possible, no stick required. It could become a great export industry providing thousands of high paying jobs and leveling our trade imbalance.<br /><br />Bill HannahanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-84442676719628214342009-07-27T14:27:05.731-05:002009-07-27T14:27:05.731-05:00Domb, If the LFTR prices can be kept as low as I h...Domb, If the LFTR prices can be kept as low as I have argued, and LFTRs can be deployed as rapidly as I suspect they can be, then the conversion from fossil fuels to LFTRs will be relatively painless. Fuel savingswould fairly quickly pay for the conversion.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-86500239469988030872009-07-27T10:55:29.473-05:002009-07-27T10:55:29.473-05:00The Greenpeace plan states:
The [r]evolution plan ...The Greenpeace plan states:<br /><i>The [r]evolution plan involves two stages of development, with continued developments in the use of fossil fuels continuing to play a major role in the energy mix for the next 20 years. Only after 2030 does the report envision moving away from a deep dependency on fossil fuels.</i><br /><br />I have learned a few things during my 58+ years of existance. One thing is that projects that are 1 year out probably will happen. Those that are 2 to 4 years out may happen. And those 5+ years out probably won't happen.<br /><br />I have also learned that economics is a strong motivator for getting things to happen.<br /><br />I believe that we will be forced to decarbonize our energy sources at some point because of increasing costs due to scarcity. But until cost of fossil fuels becomes economically unsustainable, I expect the fossil fuel providers to fight tooth and nail to hang on. When we have proven solutions making nuclear energy clearly cheaper than fossil energy, then a massive switch to nuclear will begin <b>because the path forward is clear.</b><br /><br />Even then, this massive switch will take some time, probably on the order of 20 years.<br /><br />Right now the path forward is NOT clear. The path proposed by Greenpeace offers only higher costs and decreased reliability. The nuclear path is not clear either right now due to the high costs of conventional nuclear.<br /><br />High costs for nuclear energy are being driven by a lot of non-value-added requirements (especially "safety") - encouraged by fear, ignorance, and vested interests such as fossil fuel providers and (unfortunately short sighted) equipment providers.<br /><br />When will things change? Only when the cost of fossil fuels becomes too painful. Such economic pain has the effect of clearing the mind of wishful thinking and causing it to focus on reality. I hope we have several LTFRs in operation at that point. These LTRFs will need to be built in spite of government, as we largely get the government we deserve.donbnoreply@blogger.com