--------------
The original post was a little confusing, so I tried to guess what was behind the Thorium urge. Bad guess.
``No, thorium reactor design -- waste toxicity, mining dangers and all -- isn't the darling of "big energy" but of a growing cadre of climate concerned scientists and activists...''
I checked Union of Concerned Scientists web page. They didn't support nuclear power as an answer to global warming. On the other hand I don't think UCS has looked at LFTR. I'd like to see what UCS has to say about a Thorium based energy production system.
Going to the link you posted.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/thorium-google-talk-and-jim-hansen-now.html
I am listening to the James Hansen on Charlie Rose link. Damn he sounds so reasonable. Hansen says we don't need to mine any more Uranium and can use the energy from existing sources. According to Bonometti talk below, there is enough Thorium stored in Nevada to last eight years.
There is also the issue of worker safety, beefing up NRC, EPA, DOE and NIH monitoring.
Studying and setting up a `fourth' generation nuclear power system, as just a part of the solution should mean development under heavy regulatory and monitoring regimes.
Looking around yesterday, I noticed that Orrin Hatch sponsored a bill to look at the Thorium fuel cycle. The bill requested some federal agency in Idaho to make regulatory recommendations. That doesn't sound too good. It usually implies, weakening some regulatory area.
Hansen mentions the executive branch censorship or manipulation of federal agency scientists for political purposes. I certainly agree with him, that has to stop. It means that is almost a fundamental pre-condition---and I think a complete impossibility.
Anyway in the background, from the talk on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), Bonometti is a systems engineer with US Navy and NASA background, not exactly green friendly agencies.
Finished listening to Joe Bonometti's talk. Sure. Let's build a model reactor-generating electricity system and see. Charts are charts. Plans are plans, drawing board stuff. Bonometti says the research has already been done. Ah, but that's theoretic research, not the engineering and environmental research of building and testing an existing system.
Bonometti mentions U-232, but he was pretty vague about how much is produced. He saw contamination with U-233 as a benefit. Hmm. I looked U-233 up and its half-life is 160k years. The projected quantities seem small and this shit isn't quite as bad as Plutonium, but we are still talking 55 gal drums in a salt mine
I am trying to be open minded here. In the domain where research and development should take place, I would say sure, let's do a couple proto-type development projects and see. But we obviously don't live in such a world.
My conspiratorial and toxic mind which used to be less so, says no. That mind set has gotten worse during the Obama administration. This week's nukes and drilling are back announcement just adds to that.
For example, it just occurred to me that Bonometti kept mentioning (complaining perhaps) about the required regulatory paperwork. The California regs on meeting environmental impact standards pretty effectively stopped nuclear power development here. We have four reactors in two sites Diablo Canyon down near Moro Bay and the other up north somewhere near Chico I think.
California is probably the biggest energy market in the US at a guess. We are doing without much nuclear power. Coal burning is not an option. To get around that, various regions in Cal buy coal burning electricity out of state. There are now moves to stop that in LA and environs.
I wonder if getting a LFTR model plant going, might require opening a loop hole in existing state and fed regs. That is most certainly where the free market pressure would be applied. That is a pure no-no.
Okay Bonometti says LFTR is clean, build a model system that exceeds existing environmental impact standards.
Bonometti showed a chart about energy resources that figured a limit to wind turbine potential. This and other limits, make nuclear power a needed direction---and then LFTR is the best of the bunch.
But this morning, somebody on Doug's show mentioned sea current turbines. Sea currents don't stop and would seem likely to vastly add to turbine potential. Looking around, it seems like Florida is one center for ocean based energy research. The biggest problem I see is marine life i.e. surface encrustation as a maintenance issue. Then the other problem is the more obvious, fish and mammals swimming through the blades. Sea life generally follows currents for food, navigation, and seasonal migrations. Maybe you could make the blade motion very slow and take advantage of the speed torque trade off. Another problem for the surface platform based systems are of course storms.
The search term I used was hydrokinetic turbines. Looking around, the Mississippi and Ohio rivers have small projects going. Alaska was also mentioned. Another article mentioned a Congressional bill to extend more research money.
So given the bad environmental history of nuclear power, given the regulatory resistance of the energy industry (and capital in general), given all the popular disbelief and skepticism, I'd choose to follow development for hydro kinetic systems. I guess this means leave nuclear to die in a regulatory labyrinth of maze within maze.
CG