Consider: What is one of the worlds greatest concerns and source of strife (armed conflict for access to and control of)? It is the ability to create electricity (power) as well as fuel for transportation and industry (every industry from food to manufacturing to health care to water supply and purification etc etc etc - as well as for the individual needs of the population) for heating and cooling.
Now consider: The toxic consequences of our current use of Fossil Fuel to meet all of our needs. Don't forget about Global warming/climate change (and the unpredictable weather and added energy to storms droughts floods etc) and our current practices feeding into it.
Shouldn't we be doing something else than using fossil fuel if we had the ability to?
If you think so - then - Please consider the following as what we could be doing today and are not.
Why aren't we?
Could it be because the majority of the population - like 99.999999999% - have no idea that this technology is possible?
Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke
Please read the full article that the excerpts below have been taken from.
Excerpts from the above article link:
Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.
The core of this hypothetical nuclear reactor is a cluster of tubes filled with a fluoride thorium solution. 1// compressor, 2// turbine, 3// 1,000 megawatt generator, 4// heat exchanger, 5// containment vessel, 6// reactor core.
Illustration: Martin Woodtli
Note the three following images of three different Nuclear Reactor Configurations. The 1st image is for a standard Uranium reactor. The 2nd image is for a Uranium/Thorium hybrid reactor. The 3rd image is for a Thorium only reactor.
Please note that the power output is the same for all three - now note the cost for each and the needed square footage needed for each.
The pure Thorium reactor will only need - 1/100 of the square footage of land for placement as compared to the other two. The yearly cost to run estimated at 1/5000 to 1/6000 the cost of the other two.
________________
Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor
Fuel Uranium fuel rods
Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
Coolant Water
Proliferation potential Medium
Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
Seed-and-Blanket Reactor
Fuel Thorium oxide and uranium oxide rods
Fuel input per gigawatt output 4.6 tons raw thorium, 177 tons raw uranium
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
Coolant Water
Proliferation potential None
Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
Coolant Self-regulating
Proliferation potential None
Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
Consider =
Thorium is not at all rare.
Thorium minerals occur on all continents.[6][49][50] Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined and thorium-232 is several hundred times more abundant than uranium-235.[48]
From:
Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Occurrence
Yes we currently "are" implementing clean Wind Turbine & Solar Cell energy farms. But is it enough? Is it practical in all locations?
Question - As noted above - a Thorium reactor takes 2000 to 3000 square feet of land to have a 1-GW producing power plant - as - I don't know - what is the square footage needed to produce 1-GW of electricity by using a wind farm or a solar cell farm (information not available to me at this point)?
Though there "is" this to consider on the question of solar power:Watch the world's largest solar power plant being built: Huge farm generates energy for 160,000 homes using nine MILLION panels
The mammoth $2.5 billion (£1.5 billion) project is located in California’s Carrizo Plain
Wind & Solar might still be very attractive depending on location and use.
The thing is - there is plenty that can be done - so - why limit our possibilities/capabilities?
Also Consider: How much cost is added to any product or service by the cost of the energy to grow process or manufacture to provide those (ALL) products and services?
Do you think costs could be less (all the way around from supplier to consumer/customer) if instead of having a 1-GW power plant at a cost of 50 to 60 million dollars annually to produce that power (cost just for the fuel) - as shown above for a regular Uranium reactor power plant - to instead be paying for 1-GW of electricity at fuel cost to producer of $10,000 (estimated) annually to produce with a Thorium powered plant? (Coal power plant cost to the producer is likely to be similar to the Uranium nuclear power plant producer - I do not have the figures available to me to quote).
What could that mean as a benefit to all business's (small & large) and employment and wages as well as the benefit of lowered cost to all of the customers of all industries?
Yes even health care costs (in two ways = reduction in cost of services (providers and insurers) and reduction in illness (customers) due to pollution).
The whole world could be energy independent from Fossil Fuels.
(more below)
The above was just for producing electricity (electricity to provide power to operate machinery to provide light and to heat and cool homes and business's- etc). That alone would relieve causes of armed conflict as well as reduce pollution as well as reduce the causes of poverty = scarcity.
Increasing the plenty for all would also be a benefit to society in the ability to remove causes of crime = scarcity & inability to afford. Thus reducing/removing a myriad number of social tension/stress (s) that causes/feeds violence in and around communities.
(BUT - WAIT - THERE IS MORE)
Clean Energy Technology is not limited just to the production of electricity.
Consider: Storage of electricity that is produced.
At this point in time electricity must be produced 24 hours a day - 7 days a week - 365 days a year - non-stop - because if it is not produced in perpetuity every second of our existence - then while it is not being produced - there is no electricity for us to use. Our current energy structure - "is" - use it or lose it - and to use it - power plants must never pause in operation - not for one single moment - and the energy that is produced - if not immediately used as it is produced - is lost.
We currently have no capability in our power grid to store electricity after it has been produced (as it is produced) - and so a lot of power produced is wasted (thrown away). This lack in the capability of our power grid - causes additional cost - not to mention the monumental waste of electricity that has to be created not to be used.
We need not be running a power plant every second of every day and while doing so throwing away the excess amount that is produced but is not needed at the time of production.
Yes - there is technology available to put into use to expand the ability of our power grid.
Why is it not being used?
Hell - I don't know.
But like stated earlier in this article = Could it be because the majority of the population - like 99.999999999% - have no idea that this technology is possible/available?
One such available technology for storing electricity when the electricity is not being used (demanded) by the power grid.
Please access the link below to a TED talk on the Liquid Metal Battery:
The missing Link to renewable energy
