Thorium - a technological game-changer?

[Little John]

The bottom line is that either:

we don't find a viable alternative to hydrocarbons and our civilization collapses alongside a massive die-off and that sometime, a century or two down the line, we are left with a sustainable population of a billion or so.

or

We do find a viable alternative to hydrocarbons and we carry on with BAU. In which case, we continue with the massive degradation of our eco-systems and quite possibly get runaway climate change.

Summary:

We either run out of energy and have to retreat, as a species and as a civilization, but we get to survive and rebuild from the wreckage. Or, we don't run out of energy and carry on down the road to hell and possibly take the rest of life with us.


Even shorter summary:

We either crash or we burn.

Given that I am both an optimist and also am rather fond of both humans and rest of life on earth, I naturally hope we crash.

[Lord Beria3]

We do find a viable alternative to hydrocarbons and we carry on with BAU. In which case, we continue with the massive degradation of our eco-systems and quite possibly get runaway climate change.

Or we change 'BAU' and find an alternative to fossil fuels that leads us to a more sustainable, post-industrialised world which ends the degradation of our eco-systems.

I don't think this is totally impossible.

[Little John]

We do find a viable alternative to hydrocarbons and we carry on with BAU. In which case, we continue with the massive degradation of our eco-systems and quite possibly get runaway climate change.

Or we change 'BAU' and find an alternative to fossil fuels that leads us to a more sustainable, post-industrialised world which ends the degradation of our eco-systems.

I don't think this is totally impossible.

Sad to say, the recorded history of all of the human civilizations that have ever existed over the last 10,000 years does not bode well with regards to the above

[hodson2k9]

We do find a viable alternative to hydrocarbons and we carry on with BAU. In which case, we continue with the massive degradation of our eco-systems and quite possibly get runaway climate change.

Or we change 'BAU' and find an alternative to fossil fuels that leads us to a more sustainable, post-industrialised world which ends the degradation of our eco-systems.

I don't think this is totally impossible.

Sad to say, the recorded history of all of the human civilizations that have ever existed over the last 10,000 years does not bode well with regards to the above

BAU is going to end anyway. Imo thorium wont/can't be commercialised/scaled up in time to ensure BAU carry's on, so change is going to happen anyway.

Plus the economy is going to crash and burn so change will be forced upon us either way.

Hopefully we get the right kind of change, there SHOULD in theroy, be enough pissed off people to get this change but i wouldn't count on it.

So by the time thorium is/can be commercialised, BAU should of ended and so i see it being used as more of a transtion tool to a more sustainable future, ditto LB3.

One thing i definately don't see happening is thorium being used to maintain BAU, imo theres no way it could even be scaled up in time.

Bottom line is no technology can/will be able to ensure BAU, change is coming weather we/they like it or not, what kind of change depends on the actions of the masses, how we/they react to the coming crisis.

[Little John]

Or we change 'BAU' and find an alternative to fossil fuels that leads us to a more sustainable, post-industrialised world which ends the degradation of our eco-systems.

I don't think this is totally impossible.

Sad to say, the recorded history of all of the human civilizations that have ever existed over the last 10,000 years does not bode well with regards to the above

BAU is going to end anyway. Imo thorium wont/can't be commercialised/scaled up in time to ensure BAU carry's on, so change is going to happen anyway.

Plus the economy is going to crash and burn so change will be forced upon us either way.

Hopefully we get the right kind of change, there SHOULD in theroy, be enough pissed off people to get this change but i wouldn't count on it.

So by the time thorium is/can be commercialised, BAU should of ended and so i see it being used as more of a transtion tool to a more sustainable future, ditto LB3.

One thing i definately don't see happening is thorium being used to maintain BAU, imo theres no way it could even be scaled up in time.

Bottom line is no technology can/will be able to ensure BAU, change is coming weather we/they like it or not, what kind of change depends on the actions of the masses, how we/they react to the coming crisis.

I can agree with this and would echo your hopes that the mass of people on this planet can and will find the physical and moral courage to ensure an equitable future for both mankind and the rest of life on earth. I have to admit, though, I am profoundly pessimistic. That being the case, the next best (or least worst) alternative is that we run out of energy and merely crash as a civilization. The only remaining alternative is that we do not run out of energy, in which case we really are on the road to hell.

[Lord Beria3]

People use the term 'BAU' a lot, but what do you mean by that?

Within this decade, the current globalised, free market system of economics (neo-liberalism) is going to crash and we will see a shift to a era of Scarcity Industrialism, where the state rather than the free market will regulate the oil market, some kind of rationing will be brought in at some point and protectionism will return as de-globalisation occurs.

[UndercoverElephant]

We do find a viable alternative to hydrocarbons and we carry on with BAU. In which case, we continue with the massive degradation of our eco-systems and quite possibly get runaway climate change.

Or we change 'BAU' and find an alternative to fossil fuels that leads us to a more sustainable, post-industrialised world which ends the degradation of our eco-systems.

I don't think this is totally impossible.

It is totally impossible without a major human and ecological catastrophe happening inbetween.

[clv101]

It is totally impossible without a major human and ecological catastrophe happening inbetween.

Did you watch Richard Alley's speech at the Limits to Growth Conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxCqU9jbOM

[Little John]

People use the term 'BAU' a lot, but what do you mean by that?

Within this decade, the current globalised, free market system of economics (neo-liberalism) is going to crash and we will see a shift to a era of Scarcity Industrialism, where the state rather than the free market will regulate the oil market, some kind of rationing will be brought in at some point and protectionism will return as de-globalisation occurs.

By "BAU" I mean the following:

A continued expectation of economic growth based on a continued exploitation of resources, most notably, energy. All of which leads to a continued rise of population levels and a continued degradation of the Earth's eco-systems. This pattern has been more or less consistent throughout the history of human civilizations. There have beens several civilizational collapses over history as a consequence as resources have been exhausted, leading to several major waves of migration to and exploitation of different territories until, finally, we have exploited every corner of the globe. All of the above has been exacerbated, accelerated and amplified by the use of FIAT and usury since these economic mechanisms allow today's population of humans to lay a claim on tomorrow's as yet to be exploited resources.

Which is, of course, why we find ourselves in our current predicament since it looks like tomorrow isn't going to pay up. Unless, that is, we find an alternative to hydrocarbons, in which case, as I said, we get to carry on with BAU until, instead of economic and civilizational collapse, we get ecological collapse.

The former is (civilizational collapse) is recoverable. The latter (ecological collapse), at least in the lifetime of our species, could well be not.

[mobbsey]

An opposing voice (the only one I could find)

Ah, you haven't heard me waxing lyrical about it then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Sal ... Experiment

I'm sorry, but did you read this article?

Since this was an engineering test, the large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

Thorium is not fissile. You bombard it with neutrons and 29 days later uranium-233 falls out of the decay reaction that's the result of neutron capture. I came across thorium about 20-odd years ago, after a presentation from some space cadets from the British Nuclear Engineering Society at Harwell, and have been following it ever since.

As yet no one has found a simple way of separating the U233 from the thorium breeding blanket without running the system as a batch process -- you install thorium rods, put them in place for a month or so to breed uranium, take them out and chemically separate the uranium and fabricate it into new fuel rods. As U233 is far more radioactive than U235/8 in thermal fission fuel rods, that's a really dodgy process in terms of collective doses to all involved.

And as for accidents! Yes, the "waste" from the process decays more quickly than thermal fission waste. However, that's because it's far more radioactive. Which means if there ever were an accident or leakage to the environment, the radiological effects would be far worse.

Thorium is a con; like cold fusion, perpetual energy or economic growth. Just because someone made a model in the 60s which DIDN'T do what it was intended to do -- breed U233 from thorium -- you can't say that it's going to save us. Even if they get a model breeding U233, this process doesn't produce phosphate rock, fresh water, gold, indium, or all of the other stuff that's critical to technological society that we're going to run out of in the next four to six decades.

[biffvernon]

It is totally impossible without a major human and ecological catastrophe happening inbetween.

Did you watch Richard Alley's speech at the Limits to Growth Conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxCqU9jbOM

Yes.

For those who didn't, he concludes that we can have 10 billion people living on the planet sustainably....if we want to.

I think he may be right but it all hinges on that 'if'.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just watched about half of it. I think the "if" is far too big.

[UndercoverElephant]

An opposing voice (the only one I could find)

Ah, you haven't heard me waxing lyrical about it then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Sal ... Experiment

I'm sorry, but did you read this article?

Since this was an engineering test, the large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

Thorium is not fissile. You bombard it with neutrons and 29 days later uranium-233 falls out of the decay reaction that's the result of neutron capture. I came across thorium about 20-odd years ago, after a presentation from some space cadets from the British Nuclear Engineering Society at Harwell, and have been following it ever since.

As yet no one has found a simple way of separating the U233 from the thorium breeding blanket without running the system as a batch process -- you install thorium rods, put them in place for a month or so to breed uranium, take them out and chemically separate the uranium and fabricate it into new fuel rods. As U233 is far more radioactive than U235/8 in thermal fission fuel rods, that's a really dodgy process in terms of collective doses to all involved.

And as for accidents! Yes, the "waste" from the process decays more quickly than thermal fission waste. However, that's because it's far more radioactive. Which means if there ever were an accident or leakage to the environment, the radiological effects would be far worse.

Thorium is a con; like cold fusion, perpetual energy or economic growth. Just because someone made a model in the 60s which DIDN'T do what it was intended to do -- breed U233 from thorium -- you can't say that it's going to save us.

OK...sounds believable. I didn't say it was going to save us, BTW.

Even if they get a model breeding U233, this process doesn't produce phosphate rock, fresh water, gold, indium, or all of the other stuff that's critical to technological society that we're going to run out of in the next four to six decades.

Indeed.

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues ... m-reactors

When the United States committed decades ago to uranium fuel and pressurized-water reactors for its nuclear program, other viable technologies were set aside. One, the liquid thorium fuel reactor with molten salt coolant, is re-emerging as potentially the safest, most cost-effective solution to future energy needs in the carbon-containment era. Thorium is abundant, produces far less toxic fission products than uranium and may soon compete with coal for cost per kilowatt-hour. The chemistry of thorium fission is compelling, and the engineering of thorium reactors, with a longer history than most people realize, appears to be seductively manageable

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ar-thorium

Despite not making a ripple in the wider press, there's a chance this development could be very significant. If the advocates of LFTRs are proved correct – and their arguments are certainly very compelling – then the Chinese could be taking one of the first substantial steps in a new type of nuclear race. And the stakes are high: as Sorensen reports, the project "aims not only to develop the technology but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation". It will be very interesting to see what happens next.

[Lord Beria3]

Even shorter summary:

We either crash or we burn.

Given that I am both an optimist and also am rather fond of both humans and rest of life on earth, I naturally hope we crash.

Whilst I can see the logic of your position, I find this attitude on the future (e.g. that civilsation will collapse) an odd combination with the happy clappy Transition Town stuff about how if we all do our little bit we can change the world.

I would have thought that with such a stark, bleak view of the future the survivalism/extreme preppism is the only logical conclusion of your deeply negative outlook.