Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[stilicho]

Just burning the oil contained in the sands alone will be enough to tip the climate five times over, if Canada does indeed develop it to its full extent. But, hey, since when have we ever let long term sustainability get in the way of a quick buck today!

You're entirely missing the point. Sword has offered a political and economic solution to all the handwringing over a decision--leaving Kyoto--that is overdue. If people such as bikerdruid want to derail the thread to offer anecdotes about stealing wood from Crown land and destroying the environment with his aimless meanderings about the Peace Country then that's his choice. If you want to erect a straw man about economic development of the oil sands then that's your choice too.

The reality is that the policies contained within Kyoto (or any such unbalanced "protocol") are fine for political grandstanding and appeals to emotion but address none of the stark economic challenges of the next few decades. You simply have a choice to make: accept the only logical alternative to massive exploitation of every fossil fuel resource until they're all gone; or, accept the widespread implementation of a manageable, sustainable, feasible, and reliable alternative. Sword has spent time examining and posting such alternatives and has earned retorts based on living a forest elf fantasy in a remote wilderness.

Bikerdruid (as Al Gore before him) is simply engaging in what used to be called "slumming". Obtaining and securing wealth through property and capital acquisition is the first stage. The next stage is to allocate it to fanciful and small-scale applications followed shortly by a pleasant and smug feeling of "doing something". The last stage is to challenge all those still at stage one to leap directly to stage two and to pretend that there was no first stage of the process.

This makes no economic or common sense. In essence, it's dishonest and an affront to all the people likely to be hurt the most by the implementation of policies (including Kyoto) that reward those at stage two and punish those who are still working for a living. The wealthy and the privileged won't suffer from myopic policies such as these because they can always afford to pay their way out of it. But heaven forfend if you happen to be one of the poor workaday stiffs whose job has just been legislated out of existence by some fat bald bureaucrat sitting in a teak-panelled office in Ottawa, New York, Dhaka, or Brussels.

Sword has offered an economically viable solution and deserves your applause as Canada forges onwards so that more little bikerdruids can turn on and drop out at their leisure and leave the business and political decisions to those of us capable of discerning workable policy from sheer fantasy.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No. The reason thorium has never taken off are due to the considerable technical and economic challenges it faces and the sheer fact that it is cheaper to mine and fission uranium and plutonium than thorium.

The reason nuclear in general hasn't achieved greater utilization is due to the lies, misinformation and conspiracy thoeries of the anti-nuclear lobby.

For instance, the NNL in the UK can hardly be described as tree hugging green fascists, yet they are distinctly underwhelmed by the claims made pro-thorium lobby.

http://ripassetseu.s3.amazonaws.com...__1314092891_Thorium_Cycle_Position_Paper.pdf

Set aside two hours and educate yourself.

The lobby is essentially a cover for expanding the uranium cycle,

I don't know of anyone who is covering for anything, but if you have a conspiracy theory to share, take it to the appropriate forum.

Regardless, there isn't anything wrong with expanding the uranium cycle to begins with. Our nuclear future is likely to see a deployment of multiple Generation IV+ technologies.

as any breeder reactor requires considerable amounts of U-235 (which generates considerable amounts of waste, contrary to the 'clean' claims made by the lobby).

Absolutely false, typical of the blatant lies and misrepresentations of the anti-nuclear lobby.

One ton of Thorium in an LFTR or Uranium in an IFR will generate as much energy as 3.5 million tons of coal. Of that one ton, 999 kg will come out as waste. Burning 3.5 million tons of coal creates 3.5 million tons of waste. Currently the United States generates 120 million tons of coal ash per year, recycling only about 40% of it. This leaves seventy million tons of coal waste each year that we don't know what to do with.

I have no problem with nuclear being part of the energy mix but this idea that it is a panacea is deeply flawed. The time it would take to get commercially viable breeder reactors online in any significant number to reduce emissions it will be far too late.

Also false and not in keeping with the opinions of experts in the field:

To all these, Loewen's answer is a tour of the U. S. S. North Carolina, a World War II battleship anchored near downtown Wilmington.

First stop, the engine room, two big turbines and a screw painted the same green color as a high school boiler room. On to the rudder, with old-fashioned hydraulic arms that look like a giant bicycle wheel. To the combat information center where they plotted trajectories on what looks like a giant fuse box, to the navigation room where the dead-reckoning log still lies. Then he goes out onto the bridge, where he remembers the day he grabbed his binoculars and ran out to see the Iranian missiles coming to annihilate him. Why? "Because I wanted to see my fate," he says. The point is, PRISM isn't half as complicated — and they built a fleet of these battleships overnight. Now it's a fleet of nuclear reactors Loewen sees. "That's how I answer the naysayers who say we can't build this till 2040," he says.
​

We solutions online over the next decade.

We need solutions period. Nuclear is the only solution that can work.

 

[bit_pattern]

The reason nuclear in general hasn't achieved greater utilization is due to the lies, misinformation and conspiracy thoeries of the anti-nuclear lobby.

And you can demonstrate this with evidence?

Set aside two hours and educate yourself.

I provide a source from the National Nuclear Laboratory and you respond with a 2 hour Youtube clip? Yeah, I can see where this is going.

I don't know of anyone who is covering for anything, but if you have a conspiracy theory to share, take it to the appropriate forum.

Regardless, there isn't anything wrong with expanding the uranium cycle to begins with. Our nuclear future is likely to see a deployment of multiple Generation IV+ technologies..

I never said it was. I just said that the thorium pipe-dream is being promoted as a PR campaign to soften nuclear's image. kit's not a CT, although I can see why you'd slip into the fallacy of dismissing anything that challenges your belief structures as "CT".

http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/29510

Absolutely false, typical of the blatant lies and misrepresentations of the anti-nuclear lobby.

One ton of Thorium in an LFTR or Uranium in an IFR will generate as much energy as 3.5 million tons of coal. Of that one ton, 999 kg will come out as waste. Burning 3.5 million tons of coal creates 3.5 million tons of waste. Currently the United States generates 120 million tons of coal ash per year, recycling only about 40% of it. This leaves seventy million tons of coal waste each year that we don't know what to do with.

SO you dismiss the claim then segue into a rant about coal? Are you denying that breeder reactors need uranium? I'm not saying that coal is safer than nuclear, I'm saying that thorium reactors as a solution to our problems is a pipe dream. And you haven't done much as yet to convince me otherwise.

Also false and not in keeping with the opinions of experts in the field:

To all these, Loewen's answer is a tour of the U. S. S. North Carolina, a World War II battleship anchored near downtown Wilmington.

First stop, the engine room, two big turbines and a screw painted the same green color as a high school boiler room. On to the rudder, with old-fashioned hydraulic arms that look like a giant bicycle wheel. To the combat information center where they plotted trajectories on what looks like a giant fuse box, to the navigation room where the dead-reckoning log still lies. Then he goes out onto the bridge, where he remembers the day he grabbed his binoculars and ran out to see the Iranian missiles coming to annihilate him. Why? "Because I wanted to see my fate," he says. The point is, PRISM isn't half as complicated — and they built a fleet of these battleships overnight. Now it's a fleet of nuclear reactors Loewen sees. "That's how I answer the naysayers who say we can't build this till 2040," he says.
​

It's not false. And somebody saying that it could be done doesn't make it false. The fact is that we aren't building reactors like battleships and that the costs of doing that would be so stupendously astronomical when you could achieve the same results through other means for far less cost, as per the treaty that Canada just rubbished.

We need solutions period. Nuclear is the only solution that can work.

What we don't need is cheap slogans like this.

 

[bit_pattern]

You're entirely missing the point. Sword has offered a political and economic solution to all the handwringing over a decision--leaving Kyoto--that is overdue.

No he hasn't. He has just banged on about an unproven technology that has never been able to be made commercially viable in the 50 years we've known about it.

If people such as bikerdruid want to derail the thread to offer anecdotes about stealing wood from Crown land and destroying the environment with his aimless meanderings about the Peace Country then that's his choice. If you want to erect a straw man about economic development of the oil sands then that's your choice too.

The tar sands are THE primary reason Canada has resisted Kyoto. Only the wilfully blind would think that the two issues are mutually exclusive.

The reality is that the policies contained within Kyoto (or any such unbalanced "protocol") are fine for political grandstanding and appeals to emotion but address none of the stark economic challenges of the next few decades. You simply have a choice to make: accept the only logical alternative to massive exploitation of every fossil fuel resource until they're all gone; or, accept the widespread implementation of a manageable, sustainable, feasible, and reliable alternative. Sword has spent time examining and posting such alternatives and has earned retorts based on living a forest elf fantasy in a remote wilderness.

Well I've spent time examining it too and I concur with the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory - thorium reactors are not a feasible part of our nuclear future. That is a commercial reality. Whereas Sword is basing his claims on a conspiracy theory that somehow greenies are stopping us from living in a thorium wonderland.

His is an ideological fight, it has nothing to do with real world solutions.

Bikerdruid (as Al Gore before him) is simply engaging in what used to be called "slumming". Obtaining and securing wealth through property and capital acquisition is the first stage. The next stage is to allocate it to fanciful and small-scale applications followed shortly by a pleasant and smug feeling of "doing something". The last stage is to challenge all those still at stage one to leap directly to stage two and to pretend that there was no first stage of the process.

See, you bias shows in the first sentence of this paragraph. You're just playing an ideological game too. You seem motivated by childish instincts and I'd imagine you don't actually have anything constructive to add beyond cheerleading for Sword against Bikerdruid, or whatever the heck these people are called.

This makes no economic or common sense. In essence, it's dishonest and an affront to all the people likely to be hurt the most by the implementation of policies (including Kyoto) that reward those at stage two and punish those who are still working for a living. The wealthy and the privileged won't suffer from myopic policies such as these because they can always afford to pay their way out of it. But heaven forfend if you happen to be one of the poor workaday stiffs whose job has just been legislated out of existence by some fat bald bureaucrat sitting in a teak-panelled office in Ottawa, New York, Dhaka, or Brussels.

Sigh... Whatever dude. Are we talking about Kyoto or are we indulging your childish caricatures of you perceived ideological enemies?

Sword has offered an economically viable solution and deserves your applause as Canada forges onwards so that more little bikerdruids can turn on and drop out at their leisure and leave the business and political decisions to those of us capable of discerning workable policy from sheer fantasy.

No he hasn't. The fantasy here is that thorium would be a commercially viable alternative if all the hippies would stop bleating. That's not a "business and political decision", it's a moronic, inflexible ideological position.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Actually I am pretty good, considering your only response seems to be to chant "You don't know my life!" rather than, you know, deal with the fact that your activities are causing more environmental problems than you are admitting to. You're either incredibly ignorant or a hypocrite.

Are these options mutually exclusive?

**** you Canada!

A post worthy of your usual standards.

You don't need to mine tar-sand fields to "stay warm", nor would the proposed measures deny Canada the right to "keep warm" by burning fossil fuels, but nice try at building a straw man anyway. You get points for effort.

What would you recommend for our energy needs BP?
You seem to be spending a lot of time preaching about what we shouldn't be doing, but none on what we should.

His is an ideological fight, it has nothing to do with real world solutions.

LOL!
The pot meets the kettle in the watermelon fields.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And you can demonstrate this with evidence?

Scientific Adviser to the British Green Party caught hyperinflating Fukushima danger to line his own pockets.

The Grande Damme of the anti-nuclear lobby admits to George Monbiot that she has no peer reviewed science to back her up.

These are high-ranking representatives of the anti-nuclear lobby.

I provide a source from the National Nuclear Laboratory and you respond with a 2 hour Youtube clip?

I provide a two hour presentation by a NASA engineer in charge of designing power systems for deep space installations and all you come up with a poisoning the well fallacy?

I never said it was. I just said that the thorium pipe-dream is being promoted as a PR campaign to soften nuclear's image.

I've heard nothing from my contacts in the nuclear community indicating this is the case. If such a conspiracy is real, no one I know has said anything bout it.

SO you dismiss the claim then segue into a rant about coal? Are you denying that breeder reactors need uranium? I'm not saying that coal is safer than nuclear, I'm saying that thorium reactors as a solution to our problems is a pipe dream. And you haven't done much as yet to convince me otherwise.

You made a patently false claim and I demolished it. Wanna band-aid?

It's not false. And somebody saying that it could be done doesn't make it false.

That somebody is an experienced nuclear engineer. Yes, that does make your claim false.

What we don't need is cheap slogans like this.

You compile a list of all the energy sources that have the same or better energy density as fossil fuels and have the ability to be always on all night, all day, rain wind or shine (or lack thereof) and those are your list of candidates to replace coal oil and gas.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No he hasn't. He has just banged on about an unproven technology that has never been able to be made commercially viable in the 50 years we've known about it.

I swear, you are totally going to @#$% your panties when you find out that men have landed on the moon and airplanes don't need propellers anymore.

 

[stilicho]

Quote:
The reality is that the policies contained within Kyoto (or any such unbalanced "protocol") are fine for political grandstanding and appeals to emotion but address none of the stark economic challenges of the next few decades. You simply have a choice to make: accept the only logical alternative to massive exploitation of every fossil fuel resource until they're all gone; or, accept the widespread implementation of a manageable, sustainable, feasible, and reliable alternative. Sword has spent time examining and posting such alternatives and has earned retorts based on living a forest elf fantasy in a remote wilderness.

Well I've spent time examining it too and I concur with the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory - thorium reactors are not a feasible part of our nuclear future. That is a commercial reality. Whereas Sword is basing his claims on a conspiracy theory that somehow greenies are stopping us from living in a thorium wonderland..

It will be some kind of nuclear power, like it or not. It's your choice, really. Since you "know" that Canada dropped out purely because of the oil sands then it's your choice on whether to support nuclear technology in providing our energy in the near future or something else--such as the oil sands.

Which is it? Do you promote the vigorous exploitation of the oil sands? Do you embrace a move towards nuclear technology? Really simple. No ideological stance required.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern
What we don't need is cheap slogans like this.

You compile a list of all the energy sources that have the same or better energy density as fossil fuels and have the ability to be always on all night, all day, rain wind or shine (or lack thereof) and those are your list of candidates to replace coal oil and gas.

This again is the key. Both bikerdruid and bit_pattern have tried vigorously to steer the conversation away from economics and towards some sort of mystical ideological debate. To bikerdruid's credit, he's actually proposed an alternative (albeit a rather unsustainable one) while bit_pattern has responded with no alternative at all. The default position of someone like that (wait and see) is a continuation of the thorough exploitation and development of every single detectable source of fossil fuels on the planet. That's ostensibly the opposite of the result that they desire.

Your proposals may be economically feasible or they may not be. I don't know and neither does anyone here, really. I do know that bikerdruid's solution is complete fantasy and we'll wait patiently to see whether bit_pattern's is.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Your proposals may be economically feasible or they may not be. I don't know and neither does anyone here, really. I do know that bikerdruid's solution is complete fantasy and we'll wait patiently to see whether bit_pattern's is.

BP will (hopefully) correct me if I am wrong; but his default position on this is that we can do everything with solar and wind. I say "hopefully" because he knows he is out of his depth in this thread, and true to his usually brave form he will not return. Many a white feather has been handed to BP in the past.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We solutions online over the next decade.

One more thing in response to this claim. With China rationing the world from the rare earth metals that they own 90% of, we are going to need massive new production to make any alternative energy solution anything but a joke.

Opening any new mines, or re-opening old ones (which will invariably get derailed by the eco-lobby) will take at least ten years if the investors are lucky.

 

[stilicho]

BP will (hopefully) correct me if I am wrong; but his default position on this is that we can do everything with solar and wind. I say "hopefully" because he knows he is out of his depth in this thread, and true to his usually brave form he will not return. Many a white feather has been handed to BP in the past.

If solar and wind could provide anything close to what we need you'd see billions and billions of venture capital in it (and not the kind that's secured by government debt). I'd rather put all my money into magnetic levitation trains.

 

[bit_pattern]

Scientific Adviser to the British Green Party caught hyperinflating Fukushima danger to line his own pockets.

The Grande Damme of the anti-nuclear lobby admits to George Monbiot that she has no peer reviewed science to back her up.

These are high-ranking representatives of the anti-nuclear lobby.

You miss the point entirely. Just because the anti-nuke lobby are opposed does not mean they are responsible for why there are no commercially viable thorium reactors. The reason is that they are not a commercially viable prospect.

I provide a two hour presentation by a NASA engineer in charge of designing power systems for deep space installations and all you come up with a poisoning the well fallacy?

The opinions of a single engineer are not on par with a commissioned report by the chief atomic agency in the UK. The two aren't even close to being comparable. Are you even going to even acknowledge the findings of the NNL or are you just going to rail against your perceived ideological enemies?

I've heard nothing from my contacts in the nuclear community indicating this is the case. If such a conspiracy is real, no one I know has said anything bout it.

Oh. That's reassuring. Personal anecdotes from an anonymous guy on the internet who has nuclear industry "sources".

You made a patently false claim and I demolished it. Wanna band-aid?

No, you ignored it. Are you going to acknowledge the fact that thorium needs to be bombarded with uranium isotopes which result in considerable levels of U-232 waste? Or are you going to acknowledge the findings of NNL that showed that the reduction in radioactive waste would be at best modest and, in the short term at least, the benefits are too marginal to justify the necessary investment?

That somebody is an experienced nuclear engineer. Yes, that does make your claim false.

No it doesn't. Mr Engineer, meet Mr Commercial Reality.

You compile a list of all the energy sources that have the same or better energy density as fossil fuels and have the ability to be always on all night, all day, rain wind or shine (or lack thereof) and those are your list of candidates to replace coal oil and gas.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

You go and get a clue about economic viability and you get back to me.

There is a reason why economists favour market mechanisms over the intensive Big Government intervention and subsidisation that would be required to build a thorium nuclear industry, mainly, it is cheaper and more effective.

So, by all means, keep railing against those evil greenies who are the only thing standing between you and a free energy utopia. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to operate in the real world and will look at realistic real world solutions.

Nuclear will undoubtedly play a part in the energy mix required to get us of fossil fuels but the idea that nuclear is a silver bullet solution, or the conspiracy theory that the only reason the nuclear silver bullet isn't already being used is because greenies and lefties object to it, is plain absurd and should be properly outed as such.

 

[bit_pattern]

BP will (hopefully) correct me if I am wrong\

You're wrong.

 

[bit_pattern]

This again is the key. Both bikerdruid and bit_pattern have tried vigorously to steer the conversation away from economics and towards some sort of mystical ideological debate.

That's pretty funny considering my whole argument against the evangelical proponents of thorium is primarily an economic one. But well done for not reading anything I've said and instead single-mindedly railing against what you think I should have said based on your ideological standing on the issue. That takes a special kind of commitment to your worldview and I applaud it.

 

[bit_pattern]

I swear, you are totally going to @#$% your panties when you find out that men have landed on the moon and airplanes don't need propellers anymore.

Look, if you think massive government subsidies are the answer, fine, let's wait and see what happens in China and India. If they successfully develop commercially viable thorium reactors I will happily renounce my position and everything I've said in this thread and acknowledge your economic preeminence in this debate.

Because that's exactly what they are trialling, I'm happy to be proved wrong but my reading of the situation is that they will soon run up against the same barriers that nuclear engineers in the West.

Be sure to bump this thread in five years time if it actually comes to fruition. I'll happily eat humble pie.

 

[bit_pattern]

If solar and wind could provide anything close to what we need you'd see billions and billions of venture capital in it (and not the kind that's secured by government debt). I'd rather put all my money into magnetic levitation trains.

Precisely. Same goes for thorium reactors. And believe me, China is putting considerably more into wind and solar than they are thorium.

 

[bit_pattern]

What would you recommend for our energy needs BP?

Well done, out of your whole post this is the only substantive point that's not a veiled ad-hom attack.

I don't know how productive discussing mitigation policies with someone who denies AGW really is but, in answer, I would say a wide mix of energy sources depending on particular regional and geographical requirements.

For instance, Australia has no need to go nuclear, we can feasibly meet out energy needs through a mix of solar thermal/geothermal for baseload and solar PV, wind, tidal etc to support the grid during peak load periods.

Other parts of the world, Canada for instance, nuclear will definitely be a major component to meeting their energy needs.

I personally think it should be an option of last resort, and all those billions of dollars that are required to prop up the nuclear industry (especially for untested technologies like thorium) would be better spent developing clean, renewable energy sources wherever feasible.

That being said, I'm open to arguments that are convincing. the thorium fantasy-land utopia is currently NOT convincing.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm going to post this again, in case anyone missed it the first time, but it is the report commissioned by the National Nuclear Laboratory in the UK into the feasibility of the thorium cycle:

http://ripassetseu.s3.amazonaws.com...__1314092891_Thorium_Cycle_Position_Paper.pdf

It's not a long document but it is a very informative read. It's not from an anti nuclear group or any sort of green interest, it is a dispassionate analysis of the scientific, industrial and economic feasibility of thorium reactors.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You're wrong.

Succinct yet expansive. Thanks for the clarification.

Look, if you think massive government subsidies are the answer, fine, let's wait and see what happens in China and India.

Who are receiving very large quantities of Australia's Urnaium and/or coal to supply their energy needs while we are planning on using, um ... well hopefully something will come up soon.

Well done, out of your whole post this is the only substantive point that's not a veiled ad-hom attack.

<snip>

I don't know how productive discussing mitigation policies with someone who denies AGW really is but

Who denies AGW? Oh! It's me isn't it? Except I don't.
So another big "wrong" for you.

For instance, Australia has no need to go nuclear, we can feasibly meet out energy needs through a mix of solar

Billions required and years away - hope is not science.

thermal/geothermal for baseload and solar PV, wind, tidal etc to support the grid during peak load periods.

Ditto above with an "or" in between.

Other parts of the world, Canada for instance, nuclear will definitely be a major component to meeting their energy needs.

So why shouldn't Australia embrace nuclear as a cheaper more reliable source of energy than those you have listed?