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

[bit_pattern]

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.

No, that 'something' is already there. Like I said, a mix of geo and solar thermal for baseload, supplemented by PV etc for peak load demands.

Nothing veiled about it, a coward is a coward.

Hmmm.

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

So you've changed your position from a year ago? That's nice to know you've finally caught up with reality.

Billions required and years away - hope is not science.

My position on the thorium silver bullet argument in a nutshell. Thanks for agreeing with me.

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

Because it isn't a cheaper, more reliable source of energy. That's the whole point of my argument. An argument you've studiously avoided, preferring instead to try and divert the discussion into the merits of nuclear over renewables, when imo the two are not mutually exclusive. Another classic straw man.

 

[bit_pattern]

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.

You don't need rare earth minerals to melt salt. And, yes, back to the old "eco lobby" conspiracy. If only or those damn hippies and their liberal politics, we'd be living in a nuclear Utopia right now

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

I proved that the leaders of the anti-nuclear lobby run on lies.

The reason is that they are not a commercially viable prospect.

Bare assertion fallacy.

The opinions of a single engineer are not on par with a commissioned report by the chief atomic agency in the UK.

They are if his math is correct. If you had started watching when I posted it, you would be done by now.

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

Compared to your unsupported paranoid conspiracy theories?

No, you ignored it.

You said that breeder reactors produce large amounst of waste, and I annihilated your claim with a double barreled blast of fact and logic.

Are you going to acknowledge the fact that thorium needs to be bombarded with uranium isotopes

Not a fact. It needs to be bombarded with neutrons. The fertile materials in the fuel mass don't care where they come from.

which result in considerable levels of U-232 waste?

That's a feature, not a bug. U-232 has a short half-life and a decay chain which results in the creation of hard gamma emitters. These cannot be dealt with by guys in suits and instead require complex remote systems. Furthermore the gamma rays wreak havoc with the complicated electronics inside a nuclear weapon making it unlikely that it would even work properly.

The upshot of this is that bomb creation with LFTRs is extremely difficult and off limits to all but the most advanced economies.

Or are you going to acknowledge the findings of NNL that showed that the reduction in radioactive waste would be at best modest

Absolutely false. I have no idea why they would say such a thing. Any system that is designed to make fuel from fertile materials rather than start with enriched fuel is going to produce hundreds of times less waste than current reactors running on the lightly enriched once-through cycle.

No it doesn't.

A qualified nuclear engineer is superior in this regard to some anonymous dude spewing invective on the internet.

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

My question was all about economic viability. Wind turbines and solar panels typically have capacity factors of 30% to 25%. A wind turbine that isn't turning isn't making you money.

Density is the other big concern. A denser fuel or power source means a smaller production facility, which in turn means less overhead and easier, less expensive maintenance.

You are the one who doesn't have a clue about economic viability.

There is a reason why economists favour market mechanisms over the intensive Big Government intervention and subsidisation

Wind power receives 14 times the subsidies that Nuclear does.

Uhhhh... oops?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You don't need rare earth minerals to melt salt.

What are solar panels and wind turbines made from, genius?

And, yes, back to the old "eco lobby" conspiracy. If only or those damn hippies and their liberal politics, we'd be living in a nuclear Utopia right now

Do you live on some parallel earth where the eco-lobby doesn't react when someone tries to open a mine somewhere?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh, and in case you missed it the last time:

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.

I would really like to see your answer to this.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

Hey, do me a favor... open that document, hit CTRL-F and enter "LFTR" and hit return.

Then go get that gunshot wound in your foot looked at.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Hey, do me a favor... open that document, hit CTRL-F and enter "LFTR" and hit return.

Then go get that gunshot wound in your foot looked at.

I actually did that and it returned zero results.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, that 'something' is already there. Like I said, a mix of geo and solar thermal for baseload, supplemented by PV etc for peak load demands.

Evidence.

So you've changed your position from a year ago? That's nice to know you've finally caught up with reality.

Nope, wrong again. My position remains consistent - it's a malfunction at your end.

My position on the thorium silver bullet argument in a nutshell. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Excellent, so we agree that renewables are hope. Hang on, didn't you just say...?

Because it isn't a cheaper, more reliable source of energy.

Of course it is.
We have it, we have the technology, we can use it and it will supply us now (or as soon as we can build the plants anyway). The only thing stopping us is political will and the morons greens who hold a balance of power here don't have the common sense and/or decency to see it.

Renewables are not fully available, will not give us what we want now nor in the forseeable future, and they are more expensive to produce. In the meantime, we have heaps of cheap coal that will do the trick pending nuclear implementation. After all, it's not like the rest of the world is on board with Kyoto, carbon pricing etc. When everyone is doing it, the cessation of burning coal will make sense.

Go Canada!
You are leading the world.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho

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.

China has a command economy that can throw its money at anything it wants. Isn't China one of the global leaders in coal exploration right now? Is that your preferred option?

China also happens to be one of the key foreign investors in the Canadian petrochemical sector--especially the oil sands--so perhaps that's not exactly the example you wished to use. You're welcome.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I actually did that and it returned zero results.

Indeed.

What kind of paper on thorium fuel cycles doesn't make any mention of... you know... thorium reactors?

 

[bit_pattern]

I proved that the leaders of the anti-nuclear lobby run on lies.

Well, that's nice and good for you and all but it's NOT the argument we were having. You said that the green lobby was all that stands between us and a nuclear utopia, I suggested that you couldn't support that with evidence, you responded with articles from two prominent anti nuclear people that opposed nuclear and said 'ha!', I pointed out that had nothing to do with what we were talking about and now you respond by saying you have proved the nuclear lobby run on lies.

This is what I meant when you posted that youtube clip as a response to an argument and i said "I have a feeling where this is going," I think we've gotten to where I suspected the debate was going.

Bare assertion fallacy.

No its not. Because, unlike you, I have presented evidence that supports my assertion.

This is like when you accused me of promoting CT's. It's just a convenient fallacy for you to fall back on in order to deny evidence when it is presented to you.

They are if his math is correct. If you had started watching when I posted it, you would be done by now.

I'm not watching a 2 hour Youtube clip in lieu of you not being able o back up your assertions with any real arguments.
.

Compared to your unsupported paranoid conspiracy theories?

Oh, that's a devastating rebuttal. I supported my claims with real, actual sources. You offered personal anecdotes. Now you try again to revert to the fallacy of hand-waving away anything that contradicts you as "Paranoid conspiracy theories"

You said that breeder reactors produce large amounst of waste, and I annihilated your claim with a double barreled blast of fact and logic.

No you didn't, cowboy, although you do seem to have an excitable imagination, you ignored it. Let me quote from the NNL (I'm bored, I really have nothing better to do tonight), since you are too stubborn and bloody-minded to actually download the document and actually read it:

Radiotoxicity
Claims that thorium fuels give a reduction in radiotoxicity are justified. However, caution is required because many such claims cite studies based on a self-sustaining thorium cycle in equilibrium. More realistic studies which take account of the effect of U-235 or Pu-239 seed fuels required to breed the U-233 suggest the benefits are more modest. NNL’s view is therefore that thorium fuel cycles are likely to offer modest reductions in radiotoxicity. It is considered that the realistic benefits are likely to be too marginal to justify investment in the thorium fuel cycle. However, the substantial reduction in radiotoxicity promised by a full thorium recycle does provide a significant incentive in the long term.

Not a fact. It needs to be bombarded with neutrons. The fertile materials in the fuel mass don't care where they come from.

OK, fair point, so what's the alternative method? After all, we're talking about a technology that we'd already be using if only the eco-fascists would stop being so mean. IT must be ready to come online ASAP, no?

That's a feature, not a bug. U-232 has a short half-life and a decay chain which results in the creation of hard gamma emitters. These cannot be dealt with by guys in suits and instead require complex remote systems. Furthermore the gamma rays wreak havoc with the complicated electronics inside a nuclear weapon making it unlikely that it would even work properly.

The upshot of this is that bomb creation with LFTRs is extremely difficult and off limits to all but the most advanced economies.

Not as 'clean' as you've previously made it out to be.

Absolutely false. I have no idea why they would say such a thing.

Because I have evidence from the peak atomic energy body in the UK, as quoted above, for starters.


A qualified nuclear engineer is superior in this regard to some anonymous dude spewing invective on the internet.

My question was all about economic viability. Wind turbines and solar panels typically have capacity factors of 30% to 25%. A wind turbine that isn't turning isn't making you money.

It's not losing you money either. We'll get to solar in a moment but there is a reason why wind is second to hydro in terms of global installed capacity and why China is pouring money into wind at a far greater rate than they are their thorium development.

Density is the other big concern. A denser fuel or power source means a smaller production facility, which in turn means less overhead and easier, less expensive maintenance.

True. I would never argue against a point like that. But that fact alone doesn't prove that one would be cheaper to develop than the other. It would factor into the equation but on its own it is not an argument.

You are the one who doesn't have a clue about economic viability.

I don't claim to. But the NNL do and, as far as the weight of evidence and the tone of what seems to pass as debate for you is concerned, you have done absolutely nothing to convince me that their analysis isn't sound. I'll post it again, just in case anyone missed it:

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

Wind power receives 14 times the subsidies that Nuclear does.

Uhhhh... oops?

Maybe it does, but that's not the point I was making. The IFCC framework that underpins Kyoto and the various manifestations since, primarily use emission pricing mechanisms to reduce emissions.

Your initial argument was that Canada could rightfully withdraw from the convention on the basis that if David Suzuki would stop being such a bully then we'd all be living in a thorium-powered wonderland.

I was merely pointing out that by singing up to the convention and putting in place an emissions trading scheme and committing to targets that meet the convention's emissions reduction scenarios would be a much cheaper option than investing heavily in an unproven fantasy land technology that has never been able to be made commercially viable.

 

[bit_pattern]

What are solar panels and wind turbines made from, genius?

Do you even know the difference between solar PV and solar thermal? And do you know that even with solar PV manufacturers, there are now processes for producing silicone that reduce the required energy input by up to 90% and manufacturing plants that are powered by solar PV, meaning that producing a carbon neutral solar panel is entirely feasible. More so thatn some unproven pie in the sky thorium fantasy.

Do you live on some parallel earth where the eco-lobby doesn't react when someone tries to open a mine somewhere?

Do you live in some parallel earth where requests for evidence to support wild-eyed and breathless assertions should be met with childish retorts and otherwise ignored?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is what I meant when you posted that youtube clip as a response to an argument and i said "I have a feeling where this is going," I think we've gotten to where I suspected the debate was going.

It doesn't help that your document didn't say a single bloody thing about what I was discussing.

This is like when you accused me of promoting CT's.

You accused thorium advocates of attempting to cover for a completely different technology. Your claim was at best a CT, at worst nonsensical and gibberish.

I'm not watching a 2 hour Youtube clip in lieu of you not being able o back up your assertions with any real arguments.

That's how you embarrassed and humiliated yourself with a report that doesn't mention 6thorium reactors.

Oh, that's a devastating rebuttal. I supported my claims with real, actual sources. You offered personal anecdotes. Now you try again to revert to the fallacy of hand-waving away anything that contradicts you as "Paranoid conspiracy theories"

You should really watch that video. When you do, you'll know why you've made a fool of yourself.

No you didn't, cowboy, although you do seem to have an excitable imagination, you ignored it.

Here's a review since you obviously missed it:

One ton of thorium in a LFTR/One ton of U-238 in a IFR = 999kg of waste.

3.5 million tons of coal = 3.5 million tons of waste.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

Let me quote from the NNL (I'm bored, I really have nothing better to do tonight), since you are too stubborn and bloody-minded to actually download the document and actually read it:

Radiotoxicity
Claims that thorium fuels give a reduction in radiotoxicity are justified. However, caution is required because many such claims cite studies based on a self-sustaining thorium cycle in equilibrium. More realistic studies which take account of the effect of U-235 or Pu-239 seed fuels required to breed the U-233 suggest the benefits are more modest. NNL’s view is therefore that thorium fuel cycles are likely to offer modest reductions in radiotoxicity. It is considered that the realistic benefits are likely to be too marginal to justify investment in the thorium fuel cycle. However, the substantial reduction in radiotoxicity promised by a full thorium recycle does provide a significant incentive in the long term.

NNL report doesn't mention LFTRS or IFRs.

OK, fair point, so what's the alternative method?

Proton beams fired into a spallation target suspended over the fuel mass in a Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor (don't bother looking in the NNL report, it isn't there).

Not as 'clean' as you've previously made it out to be.

NNL report doesn't mention LFTRs.

Because I have evidence from the peak atomic energy body in the UK, as quoted above, for starters.

No you haven't. They aren't discussing LFTRs.

It's not losing you money either.

Yes it is. It's losing you the money that something that's always on could have been making you.

This should be a no brainer.

True. I would never argue against a point like that.

Wise choice.

I don't claim to. But the NNL do and, as far as the weight of evidence and the tone of what seems to pass as debate for you is concerned, you have done absolutely nothing to convince me that their analysis isn't sound. I'll post it again, just in case anyone missed it:http://ripassetseu.s3.amazonaws.com...__1314092891_Thorium_Cycle_Position_Paper.pdf

The NNL report made no mention of LFTRs.

I was merely pointing out that by singing up to the convention and putting in place an emissions trading scheme and committing to targets that meet the convention's emissions reduction scenarios would be a much cheaper option

This is ridiculously absurd. You're claiming that buying carbon credits from a third world country with an 1800s economy is cheaper than ditching the Kyoto accords and plowing the money you saved into nuclear reator builds is the cheap option?

than investing heavily in an unproven fantasy land technology that has never been able to be made commercially viable.

This is the year 2011, not 1938.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's something else you probably won't look at:

 

[bit_pattern]

It doesn't help that your document didn't say a single bloody thing about what I was discussing.

Denial. This is obviously going nowhere.

You accused thorium advocates of attempting to cover for a completely different technology. Your claim was at best a CT, at worst nonsensical and gibberish.

It was one claim out of many, yes. And apart from dismissing it in a hand waving gesture as CT, you have refused to acknowledge nor debate the evidence I provided.

It's obvious at this point that I'm arguing with a fanatic. I've come accross this type of personality before, predominantly among climate deniers.

That's how you embarrassed and humiliated yourself with a report that doesn't mention 6thorium reactors.

You're really lost. It's a report on the analysis into the viability of thorium reactors in the UK by the National Nuclear laboratory. You are embarrassing yourself by denying the source rather than addressing it.

You should really watch that video. When you do, you'll know why you've made a fool of yourself.

You're not capable of actually holding a civil debate, are you?

Here's a review since you obviously missed it:

One ton of thorium in a LFTR/One ton of U-238 in a IFR = 999kg of waste.

3.5 million tons of coal = 3.5 million tons of waste.

This really shouldn't be this hard.

Pointing out that coal is dirty too isn't actually

NNL report doesn't mention LFTRS or IFRs

It does, read it carefully, the issue is that those technologies don't actually exist yet on anything close to a commercially viable scale. Which is and has been my point all along, and one you refuse to acknowledge or actually address - thorium technology is not a panacea that we can just turn on. And the development of those technologies will take longer than we have before they became a viable mechanism for reducing emissions. India is looking at a 2030 date for their reactor to come online and that has NOTHING to do with eco-fascists or any other construct of your lurid imagination.

Proton beams fired into a spallation target suspended over the fuel mass in a Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor (don't bother looking in the NNL report, it isn't there).

So where are these Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor then? Why aren't they already being deployed on a commercial scale? Why are CHina and Indai taking decades to develop their reactors?

In you zealotry you simply can't/refuse to acknowledge the reality on the ground.

NNL report doesn't mention LFTRs.



No you haven't. They aren't discussing LFTRs.

That's because they don't exist yet.

Yes it is. It's losing you the money that something that's always on could have been making you.

This should be a no brainer.

Not if your using it to supplement peak time loads, it still makes money which is why it has the second largest installed capacity in the world. No one has ever suggested that it can provide base laodpower. Your argument is a fallacy based on ignorance of how renewable energy is actually utilised on a grid.

Wise choice.


The NNL report made no mention of LFTRs.

Your use of the 'strike' command is a very good reflection on your denialist attitude. You have a preconceived notion in your mind and you're not actually knowledgeable enough or have the critical facilities to actually argue a case against the evidence, instead resorting to petty gibes and insults. Its like arguing with a teenager.

This is ridiculously absurd. You're claiming that buying carbon credits from a third world country with an 1800s economy is cheaper than ditching the Kyoto accords and plowing the money you saved into nuclear reator builds is the cheap option?

No, I am not.

This is the year 2011, not 1938.

And we've been trying to make thorium a viable option since 1960 and we're not much closer than we were then. So keep living with your ideologically driven zealotry and fighting the good fight, I'm sure you'll do the nuclear lobby proud. In the meantime, the rest of the world will move on according to an evidence based approach, not you fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants fanaticism that passes for evidence in your fevered mind.

 

[bit_pattern]

<img snip>

You can't actually support your position in argument so you're reduced to spamming the board with pictures?

Whatever. This is getting way too childish. II'm going to bed.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Canada wouldn't meet Kyoto goals even without the tar sands. Heating requires gobs of energy. You sit here and criticize from Oz... in Sydney the average high temperature in January is just 30F lower than the average low temp in July. You can probbaly get by with just a space heater.

You want to compare that to Canada where 80 degree temperature swings are average?

 

[Roboramma]

Canada wouldn't meet Kyoto goals even without the tar sands. Heating requires gobs of energy. You sit here and criticize from Oz... in Sydney the average high temperature in January is just 30F lower than the average low temp in July. You can probbaly get by with just a space heater.

You want to compare that to Canada where 80 degree temperature swings are average?

But that was true in 1990 as well, wasn't it? Oz was still hot then, and Canada was still cold. The question isn't why Canadians need to use "gobs of energy", but why they need to use more "gobs of energy" now than they did in 1990, and for your above post, why those reasons don't also apply to Australians. I'm not aware of major increase in population in Canada. On the other hand some advances have been made in efficiency in the intervening time, so we'd expect energy use could actually decrease.

 

[stilicho]

But that was true in 1990 as well, wasn't it? Oz was still hot then, and Canada was still cold. The question isn't why Canadians need to use "gobs of energy", but why they need to use more "gobs of energy" now than they did in 1990, and for your above post, why those reasons don't also apply to Australians. I'm not aware of major increase in population in Canada. On the other hand some advances have been made in efficiency in the intervening time, so we'd expect energy use could actually decrease.

Energy use per capita in Canada has decreased by about 2% since 1990. Energy use per capita in China (bit_pattern's example) has increased by about 110% since 1990. Energy use per capita in Australia (your example) has increased by about 18% since 1990. In the US the decrease has been about 8%.

It looks like Canada and the US are forging the vanguard in energy consumption reduction while Australia and China watch from the sidelines.

(Source: Google Public Data Explorer).

 

[Furcifer]

But that was true in 1990 as well, wasn't it? Oz was still hot then, and Canada was still cold. The question isn't why Canadians need to use "gobs of energy", but why they need to use more "gobs of energy" now than they did in 1990, and for your above post, why those reasons don't also apply to Australians. I'm not aware of major increase in population in Canada. On the other hand some advances have been made in efficiency in the intervening time, so we'd expect energy use could actually decrease.

It depends on where you're gains in efficiency come from. The internal combustion engine is was fairly inefficient in 1990, so you could make gains that offset growth rather easily. Home heating and cooling was probably more efficient so there's less gain to be made. The electric motor was pretty much 98% efficient so there's no gains to be made there.

Plus there's technology. If you're primary use of energy in 1990 was lighting you should be using 1/4 of that now. If you were lifting 20 ton chunks of salt out of a hole in the ground in 1990 you're only going to have seen marginal increases in efficiency because there haven't been huge improvements to machinery.

I have no idea what Australians actually use their energy for, I'm just giving examples of how they may be in a better position to improve and meet Kyoto emissions levels.