[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 30 KB, 399x408, Best Idea.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367688 No.5367688 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-natural-gas-is-crowding-out-thorium-2012-12

tl;dr

Weak points of thorium-
>High capital costs ($4000-$10,000/kW)
>Little existing infrastructure, no commercially operating plants
>Long lead times (estimated at over 10 years) and licensing issues
>The bad reputation of nuclear energy, due to meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima

Strong points of natural gas-
>Gas plants can be build more quickly and are cheaper than nuclear plants
>Natural gas has less harmful emissions than other fossil fuels
>Alternative energy sources are too expensive and unreliable
>Thorium power technology cannot economically compete with electricity generated by gas so long as NG prices remain in the $3-$6 per mmbtu price range.

What it would take for thorium to be put into practice in the US-
>Stricter regulations regarding greenhouse gases
>Tests which demonstrate its viability
>Investment grade credit ratings in order to finance the project
>Price guarantees from contractors
>Public knowledge of the benefits of thorium
>A stronger global economy

Article neglects to show weak points of gas and strong points of thorium (and even the existence of LFTR's), but comment section is blowing up about that.

>> No.5367699

Oh, also-
>Unpredictable changes in natural gas availability and price, potential climate change issues, uncertainty in future electrical demand, and the need for a sustainable long-term environmentally acceptable energy source make this technology too important to be abandoned at this time.

- Gary Krellenstein, former director of JP Morgan's Energy and Environment division

>> No.5367706

>>5367688
I did the math on natural gas for a paper of fracking once. If our use meets or exceeds projections, we'll be out in 20 some odd years.

>> No.5367725

>>5367706
this was before they found the fucktons more natural gas in the us right
because ive heard from multiple sources that we have 100 years plus even at projected increased consumption

>> No.5367734

>>5367706
>>5367725
Does that amount of natural gas accessible by fracking take into account the gas near aquifers? Because that gas is going to be off-limits.

>> No.5367735

>>5367725
No, I factored in the projections from 2011 when I did it.

That 100 year number is absolute bullshit published by the fossil fuel industry that they've cited themselves many times.

>> No.5367755

>>5367735
i still cant help but trust predictions from fuel companies (who have extensive and detailed knowledge of fossil fuel reserves most likely not commonly known by the general public) over the prediction of some random asshole on /sci/.

>> No.5367765

>>5367755
While gas companies have accountability, gas companies (hell, companies in general) are also self-serving

>> No.5367767

>>5367755
I got it from EIA numbers
http://www.eia.gov/
Look into it yourself if you don't believe me.

>> No.5367797
File: 38 KB, 558x386, BP-natural-gas-projections.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367797

>>5367767

sounds like bulshit to me

produce a source if you don't belie me

>> No.5367824
File: 69 KB, 256x256, 1337054815291.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367824

That economic analysis omits longterm hidden costs of natural gas - global warming.

Anyway, Long time, no see.
Thorium thread.

>> No.5367827
File: 847 KB, 938x4167, 1311010641509small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367827

dumping my thorium folder.

>> No.5367831
File: 126 KB, 720x540, 26083_101501531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367831

>>5367829

>> No.5367829
File: 85 KB, 719x382, 26083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367829

>>5367827

>> No.5367833
File: 60 KB, 720x540, 26083_10150153193845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367833

>>5367831

>> No.5367834

http://www.businessinsider.com/norway-begins-tests-on-thorium-2012-12

Earlier article.
Norway is using thorium, but not LFTRs.

>> No.5367839
File: 67 KB, 650x474, 1311190407476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367839

>>5367837

>> No.5367837
File: 39 KB, 400x384, 1312472782864.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367837

>>5367833

>> No.5367841
File: 142 KB, 1000x1000, 1315734788792.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367841

>>5367839

>> No.5367842

I'm no science major, in fact, the first time I heard about Thorium was thanks to my former 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIST ENGLISH PROFESSOR freshman year.

But OP's weak points have to be the stupidest bullshit ever typed yet.

>High capital costs ($4000-$10,000/kW)
Cost is fucking meaningless, it can still be done.

>Little existing infrastructure, no commercially operating plants
Because this is an unexplored field.
This is like blaming a chicken for not laying eggs.

>Long lead times (estimated at over 10 years) and licensing issues
More bullshit that can easily be resolved.

>The bad reputation of nuclear energy, due to meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima
Who gives a fuck about your fear mongering FOX NEWS shit and the opinions of the ignorant masses?

>> No.5367845
File: 132 KB, 860x532, 1320151865877.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367845

>>5367841

>> No.5367848
File: 98 KB, 978x656, 1320604379233.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367848

>>5367845

>>5367842

>Who gives a fuck about your fear mongering FOX NEWS shit and the opinions of the ignorant masses?

Unfortunately, shortsighted politicians often do.

>> No.5367853
File: 150 KB, 1166x739, 1321098660149.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367853

>>5367851

>> No.5367851
File: 169 KB, 900x521, 1320605819016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367851

>>5367848

>> No.5367854
File: 1.19 MB, 856x1834, 1322821332612.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367854

>>5367853

>> No.5367856
File: 137 KB, 596x517, 1340644855758.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367856

>>5367854

>> No.5367858
File: 77 KB, 735x551, advantages.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367858

>>5367856

>> No.5367864
File: 50 KB, 500x375, BlueRibbonCommissionConclusion-500x375.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367864

>>5367858

>> No.5367869

>>5367842
>>High capital costs ($4000-$10,000/kW)
>Cost is fucking meaningless, it can still be done.
It means everything to investors.

>>Little existing infrastructure, no commercially operating plants
>Because this is an unexplored field.
>This is like blaming a chicken for not laying eggs.
Again, investors.

>>Long lead times (estimated at over 10 years) and licensing issues
>More bullshit that can easily be resolved.
Investors.

>>The bad reputation of nuclear energy, due to meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima
>Who gives a fuck about your fear mongering FOX NEWS shit and the opinions of the ignorant masses?
The ignorant masses vote more than you.

>> No.5367871
File: 671 KB, 943x1500, lftr10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367871

>>5367864

>> No.5367874
File: 170 KB, 537x585, muhthorium.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367874

>>5367871

muh thorium

>> No.5367879
File: 113 KB, 1050x930, lwrvslftr2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367879

>>5367877

>> No.5367877
File: 88 KB, 872x734, reactor_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367877

>>5367874

>> No.5367889

The time to invest is when the price of power given from thorium is cheaper than any of the alternatives.

We shouldn't be trying to push agendas here just because it's scientifically cool. Though if I ever became wealthy enough a LFTR would be a good investment in my opinion

>> No.5367897

>>5367889
It isn't that.
LFTR reactors produce much more energy than other methods of energy for a much cheaper cost. They are also relatively green (with a stronger emphasis on green than relatively) and they will probably be the inevitable method of energy. The sooner we switch to thorium LFTR, the better.

>> No.5367926

>>5367755
you don't know much about energy do you? the entire industry lies about its reserves. OPEC lies about its reserves. just check out some of these leaked e-mails from the natural gas industry

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4.html

all these shale plays that have sprung up in the past few years are maybe just the result of an investment bubble.

>> No.5367927
File: 1.63 MB, 1660x2155, suzanneHobbsThoriumEnergyCycle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367927

>>5367879

>> No.5367929
File: 30 KB, 500x499, flibelogo_color_square.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367929

>>5367927

>> No.5367930
File: 1.10 MB, 850x3000, lftr poster-x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367930

>>5367929

>> No.5367936
File: 61 KB, 657x487, then.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367936

>>5367930

>> No.5367940
File: 318 KB, 1169x827, Thorium brochure with TEA Info-00002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367940

>>5367938

>> No.5367938
File: 253 KB, 1169x827, Thorium brochure with TEA Info-00001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367938

>>5367936

>> No.5367943
File: 98 KB, 500x500, thoriumxx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367943

>>5367940

>> No.5367945
File: 178 KB, 875x560, thw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367945

>>5367943

>> No.5367951
File: 14 KB, 300x300, weinberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5367951

>>5367945

>> No.5368081

Bumping softly.

>> No.5368103

So... so everything's going to be okay? Thorium's gonna fix it? We're going to be alright?

>> No.5368217

If this thorium is so much better why aren't they being used? is it solely because uranium fueled light water reactors leave waste that can be made into weaponry?

>> No.5368264

>>5368217
I think it's more because no one came up with the idea of a thorium reactor until after a bunch of Uranium reactors were already bought and paid for.

That and most nuke plants where made during the cold war, so they could turn the waste into weapons.

>> No.5368323

>>5368217
Our USSR had thorium reactors. But then came 90s and it seems now no one in our government gives a fuck about LFTR.
;_;

>> No.5369649

>>5368323
I always had an impression that they existed only in paper.

>> No.5369666
File: 50 KB, 311x400, sol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5369666

>>5367688
natural gas isn't just crowding out thorium, it's crowding out EVERYTHING!

Nuclear, solar, wind, you name just can't compete with it.

As a die hard solar advocate I can agree with you that we need to nerf natural gas big time.

>> No.5369703

>>5367688
>>Comparing weak points to strong points
>>Onlyinjournalism.gif