Shale gas

[Huguenot]

Whether or not that was true in the past, it's not reasonable to assume that these concerns continue to be valid.

Good for China - thorium and molten salt reactors.

Whatever happens, we mustn't allow outdated concerns and prejudice hold back the work we need to do to find solutions.

[HAL9000]

Thorium-based molten salt reactor system

One needs a good grasp of nuclear physics to separate the potential benefits from the nuclear industry?s self-serving hype and misinformation.

The underlying principle was developed at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. In the fifty years since, as far as is known from information in the public domain, no practical commercial design, let alone a working reactor, has been developed.

Despite vociferous claims to the contrary, if those reactors had been built at Fukushima Daiichi, there is a high probability that their entire nuclear cores would have become dispersed throughout the Pacific Ocean following the T?hoku earthquake of 11th March.

[Huguenot]

The lack of development in the 1960s is widely attributed to the attractive secondary benefits of uranium based nuclear processes in the creation of weapons.

As a dedicated consipracist I don't know why you wouldn't support that interpretation HAL9000?

More rationally, an oil rich 1960s USA obsessed with communism and unfamiliar with the 21st century issues of peak oil and environmentalism had no real incentive to develop 'clean nuclear' and government funding was limited.

On the 'vociferous claims' you refer to I'd need to see sources and qualification on both sides. You do have a track record of using the ramblings of socially disadvantaged paranoiacs on the lecture circuit as if they were 'trustworthy'?

[HAL9000]

This is one of my favourite quotes:

?The reactor has an amazing safety feature,? said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert. ?If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,? he said.

-- Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium (Contains similarly quotes from other 'experts'.)

This regarding China's nuclear plans in general: Leading physicist calls China's nuclear programme 'rash and unsafe'

You do have a track record ...

Can you back that up with an example or is this just you being you again?

[Huguenot]

Erm... mind control taking over the Germans and passim ;-)

Anyway, I'm going to read your links, but you knew than anyway!

[Huguenot]

Okay, done that.

The first is predictably evangelical and OTT, the second refers to uranium based nuclear power, not thorium.

The Chinese have to buy their uranium from Australia, with a very weak trading record. The anxiety is predictable, but not relevant to thorium.

It's important that we get away from just 'nuclear is bad', to recognising that there are different processes and fuels. 'Wind' isn't the same as 'Gas' even though it sounds similar.

[HAL9000]

Never mind the German mind-control cultists, if it were in my power, I would gift to you a subtle sense of humour and an internally fitted E-meter that vibrates whenever your plonker is pulled.

Alas, all I can do is wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Hilarious and Preposterous New Year :)

[Huguenot]

;-)

[nashoi]

I was under the impression it was India leading the way with thorium, it has abundant supplies and, due to the non proliferation treaty, uranium has historically been in short supply.

Coincidentally I was reading about India's plans on this site recently and have just looked up China's. What struck me was looking at where the technology is coming from, the Chinese are mostly buying from the USA (Westinghouse) and France (Areva), India from Russia. The Canadians are heavily involved in thorium research, but UK plc? Nowhere to be seen.

[????]

and this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848

US industry is becoming competitive again due to significantly reduced energy bills

US households getting a nice boost to incomes as shale gas reduces the average household bill by 20%

US will have less and less interest in the Middle East...this could be dangerous or good

...it's a game changer

[StraferJack]

Almost a YEAR later and your first word is "and"?

Dude...

[????]

Shows how ahead of the game I was :)

[StraferJack]

alternatively, a man alone ;-)

I'm neutral on the subject btw - I'm not necessarily convinced by the doommongers but nor am I persuaded by evangelists.

Reaping the benefit of a power-source in a short term (historically speaking) appears to only have upsides - history says there will be "issues"

file me under "cautiously appreciative" on this one

[BrandNewGuy]

This might give you a less gushing overview than the IEA one (they have been caught out several times before massaging and manipulating their figures)

http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/185311

The Klondike-like rush to shale gas has led to oversupply and significant decrease in price, which ironically makes the expensive process less economic. Investors are worried... The USA's sluggish economy has also helped consumers with their energy prices.

Shale gas was not a new technology but became economic due to the large oil price increases of 2006-08. It remains to be seen whether it's a long-term alternative to either coal or oil. If the USA wants to get back to a world of steady long-term growth, it won't become self-sufficient in energy - a situation that ironically can only likely happen with long-term economic stagnation and decline.

Not a game changer IMHO.

[????]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21453393

- US manufacturing renassance on cheap fuel is alraedy happening and their competitivenss will incraese as some competitors look to more expensive renewables

- further massive destibilastion in OPEC as social contract breaks down as autocratic paternalism ceases to work as business model based on high oil prices collapse

I keep telling ya

[wolis]

Worth looking at a film called Gasland by Josh Fox. It's about fracking in the States.

[StraferJack]

Interesting letter from an atypical opponent

http://bit.ly/19pB8Jx

[El Pibe]

I think 'destroys argument' is rather hyperbolic, but some good points well said.

My main issue is that it so fundamentally detracts from any efforts to do anything about carbon reduction.

It's spectacularly expensive in carbon to produce, leave alone the fact that we suddenly have hundreds of years more reserves of carbon fuel, the impending peak of which was doing much to focus attention on alternatives.

This without the more conventional environmental damage it wreaks http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water

[StraferJack]

did that go on the link? Oops.

I didn't think it destroyed anything either - just wanted to post the letter itself which I thought made some good points from a non stereotypical source

[????]

That,s just an emotive piece EP, not science or anything, I thought you believed in good science. Are all communities in the US anti franking, running out of water, jumping up and down in anger at their 20pc reduction in energy bills etc. Renewables are expensive,w ay over subsidised and years away from making a significant dent in our energy consumption gas and fracked oil are far better Environmentally than coal fired electricity...the debate lacks any rationality in most of them their circles that I get in trouble for going on about :) just FRACKING= BAD end of....sigh

[numbers]

what quids said.

govt's own target for 20% renewables by 2020 (which won't be met) leaves 80% to find from non-renewables which if we are not going to get by going down nuclear route leaves oil, gas or coal. and that's leaving aside the imbalance we get from wind (too much).

[polla2256]

I've made my mind up - fracking is not the future. It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW. Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked for HS2 into fusion.

[Marmora Man]

polla2256 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've made my mind up - fracking is not the future.

> It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW.

> Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked for

> HS2 into fusion.

Glad yuo've made your mind up. How? I'm still trying to find objective evidence on which to base a decision. The former Government Chief Scientist David King has dismissed most of the concerns cited as irrational. Others tell me I'll be able to light the gas coming from my cold water tap. What is truth?

[DaveR]

This is a quote from the Guardian article in EP's link:

But Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, argues fracking is not the only reason Texas is going dry ? and nor is the drought. The latest shocks to the water system come after decades of overuse by ranchers, cotton farmers, and fast-growing thirsty cities.

"We have large urban centres sucking water out of west Texas to put on their lands. We have a huge agricultural community, and now we have fracking which is also using water," she said. And then there is climate change.

West Texas has a long history of recurring drought, but under climate change, the south-west has been experiencing record-breaking heatwaves, further drying out the soil and speeding the evaporation of water in lakes and reservoirs. Underground aquifers failed to regenerate. "What happens is that climate change comes on top and in many cases it can be the final straw that breaks the camel's back, but the camel is already overloaded," said Hayhoe.

The point about fracking is that the rational evidence suggests not that there are no drawbacks/negative effects, but that those that can be accurately measured e.g. chemical use are not particularly severe for what is, after all, an industrial process, and those that are reliant on risk analysis e.g. do not represent signficant risks. The economic argument in favour is unanswerable, at least in the short - medium term.

However, the argument is not just about science or economics but also politics, which is perfectly appropriate (science and economics might support eugenics, but most people don't).

The political argument against (at least insofar as it's not based on pretend science) is, as EP said, this:

"My main issue is that it so fundamentally detracts from any efforts to do anything about carbon reduction.", or to put it another way, cheaper fossil fuels lessen the incentives to seek (non-polluting) alternatives.

I can see the argument, but I'm not persuaded, for two reasons. Firstly, stopping fracking will mean more energy from dirtier and more expensive fossil fuels for a long time to come - a big loss for an uncertain future pay off. Secondly, the incentive for greater overall fuel efficiency will never go away (at least in a competitive market) and tbh I think market driven mechanisms are the only means by which human energy use is going to fundamentally change.

[numbers]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> polla2256 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I've made my mind up - fracking is not the

> future.

> > It will cause issues and I want fusion NOW.

> > Imagine if the UK ploughed the money earmarked

> for

> > HS2 into fusion.

>

> Glad yuo've made your mind up. How? I'm still

> trying to find objective evidence on which to base

> a decision. The former Government Chief Scientist

> David King has dismissed most of the concerns

> cited as irrational. Others tell me I'll be able

> to light the gas coming from my cold water tap.

> What is truth?

I'd take Sir David King's word over the reactionary opposition from those with vested interests anyday.

(Mind you, the Chief Scientist was always extremely pro-nuclear. Anything we do now in that respect is probably a bit 'too little, too late').