No Need for Energy Poverty

[SDET]

Personally, I won't be buying into renewable energy until I can get a portable unit that can be hauled on a trailer and laws that facilitate parking that trailer where I happen to be renting. Or better still, having on-site produced energy available at the property. I want personal energy independence.

No Need for Energy Poverty

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/09/11/no_need_for_energy_poverty_110474.html

It’s a popular theme—from Thomas Malthus to Paul R. Ehrlich to Thanos of Avengers fame: Only drastic action will avert catastrophe. We must consume less, accept less, be less.

Under his plan, the government would control energy production and distribution, relying solely on wind, solar and other ‘renewable’ energy sources. (Imagine having to call the federal government because your power is out, only to hear a message that your expected hold time is over an hour long).

Regardless of what the supposed climate change experts claim, the reality is that since 1970 America has reduced the six key harmful pollutants by 73% while still growing our GDP by 262%, population by 59%, miles traveled by 189% and energy use by 44%. Those are great numbers by any standard, and in 2017, Americans spent $300 billion less on energy than ten years before, meaning they have more to invest in their families, kids’ education, communities and favorite charities.

Right now, the United States produces more oil and natural gas and holds more recoverable coal than any other nation, and we are continually increasing our reserves thanks to scientific advancements. There is no reason anyone should be without affordable energy.

We don’t have to accept less. We’ve experienced economic freedom and a better quality of life because of our abundance of affordable, reliable energy resources. And with that abundance, we can promote human health, combat energy poverty and improve the quality of life for all people regardless of where they live.

 

[WillyPete]

Thorium reactors are my horse in that race.

Efficient, safe, abundant fuel, etc.

 

[Carjosse]

Personally, I won't be buying into renewable energy until I can get a portable unit that can be hauled on a trailer and laws that facilitate parking that trailer where I happen to be renting. Or better still, having on-site produced energy available at the property. I want personal energy independence.

I live in Quebec where electricity is controlled by Hydro-Quebec (a crown corporation owned by the Quebec government). Quebec has the cheapest and greenest electricity in North America from hydroelectricity.

Have you ever heard of these things called solar panels?

 

[SDET]

We all can't exploit Churchill Falls. That cheap energy is the result of a sweetheart deal at the expense of Newfoundland.

The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday ended the province’s long and costly legal quest to reopen the controversial 65-year contract, under which Hydro-Québec continues to buy Labrador hydroelectric power at 1960s prices and resells it at huge profits.

Why the curse of Churchill Falls will continue to haunt Newfoundland - The Globe and Mail

Solar panels need further refinement and permission to install them is hard to come by.

I live in Quebec where electricity is controlled by Hydro-Quebec (a crown corporation owned by the Quebec government). Quebec has the cheapest and greenest electricity in North America from hydroelectricity.

Have you ever heard of these things called solar panels?

 

[Media_Truth]

Personally, I won't be buying into renewable energy until I can get a portable unit that can be hauled on a trailer and laws that facilitate parking that trailer where I happen to be renting. Or better still, having on-site produced energy available at the property. I want personal energy independence.


https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/09/11/no_need_for_energy_poverty_110474.html

It wouldn't be very practical to install solar panels on a flatbed. PV systems have to be structurally engineered, so that heavy winds won't blow them away. For my pedestal-mount PV system, we had to excavate a 10'x10'x5' deep hole. The hole has concrete and rebar supports.

 

[Media_Truth]

Thorium reactors are my horse in that race.

Efficient, safe, abundant fuel, etc.

Thorium reactors produce just as much radioactive waste as uranium reactors, and they are no safer.

 

[Drawdown]

We need nuclear reactors. It is the only 24/7 carbon free generation out there than can supply everybody everywhere.

 

[WillyPete]

Thorium reactors produce just as much radioactive waste as uranium reactors, and they are no safer.

I claim no expertise, but some sources claim:

The Th-U fuel cycle does not irradiate Uranium-238 and therefore does not produce transuranic (bigger than uranium) atoms like Plutonium, Americium, Curium, etc. These transuranics are the major health concern of long-term nuclear waste.

On the safety front, that has to do with my understanding that Thorium reactors can be designed in such as way that there is no chance of a runaway reaction\meltdown, which has been the major concern in just about all nuclear disasters. If anything goes wrong, the reaction can be safely turned off, and it will even turn itself off.

Thorium has many other benefits, as well, that I feel make it worth exploring.

 

[Media_Truth]

I claim no expertise, but some sources claim:



On the safety front, that has to do with my understanding that Thorium reactors can be designed in such as way that there is no chance of a runaway reaction\meltdown, which has been the major concern in just about all nuclear disasters. If anything goes wrong, the reaction can be safely turned off, and it will even turn itself off.

Thorium has many other benefits, as well, that I feel make it worth exploring.

A link to some pro-nuclear site - it's what's not mentioned that proposes the problems.

Nuclear reactors fueled with thorium and uranium do not provide any clear overall
advantages over reactors fueled with uranium alone. All types of nuclear fuels,
whether uranium- or thorium-based, generate large amounts of heat during reactor
operation, and failing to effectively remove that heat will lead to serious safety
problems, as was seen at Fukushima.
...

There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not
clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present
proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous
separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently
produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the
used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the
remains of the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically
challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been
cleaned up.

 

[Media_Truth]

We need nuclear reactors. It is the only 24/7 carbon free generation out there than can supply everybody everywhere.

Yeah, if you like the most expensive and bureaucratic power in the world. And please tell us who is responsible to maintain the high level waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Current containment is rated for 200 years.

 

[rickc]

Well a few problems with nuclear nobody has solved.

What to do with the waste?

When they screw they screw up big time. Like in nobody can get near it for a few thousand years. People always screw up eventually.

How do you fix them when they are worn out?

From an environmental standpoint these are certainly deal killers

 

[Drawdown]

Yeah, if you like the most expensive and bureaucratic power in the world. And please tell us who is responsible to maintain the high level waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Current containment is rated for 200 years.

Strange that you think we can have magic non-existent batteries for solar but don't think we can do better managing nuclear. The secret is to do away with the rods....