Obama primary opponent Bob Greene: Calif. man has energy plan for U.S. for next 1000 years

[Maslo55]

DOVER — Democratic presidential candidate Bob Greene is hoping to use his lesser known campaign to raise awareness of greener energy sources he says could provide energy for the next 1,000 years for Americans.

Born and raised in Massachusetts, he received his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Wyoming. He currently lives in Mountain View, Calif., but when he made the decision to push his position on cleaner energy policies, he opted to put down the $1,000 and take a stab at running for president.

This is Greene's first time running, and he's not sure if it's his last, but he certainly wants the world to know his position on thorium — a natural radioactive chemical element he hopes can change the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

A piece of thorium the size of a golf ball would be enough to provide energy for one person for their lifetime, he said.

"I see this as an issue of national security," he said. "We can stop oil wars if we do this. We can change our import economy to an export economy."

He said if such a plan went through, he could see it rejuvenating the manufacturing industry in America with new jobs to create these plants.

Source:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111230/GJNEWS_01/712309949

---

Obama completely ignored the huge potential of LFTR to make America energy independent ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html ), and his energy policy was not much of a policy at all. This candidate endorses a truly progressive energy vision to once again put America on the world forefront of energy innovation.
If not, we will have to buy it from the Chinese, who already started their LFTR development program.

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

[Bob Wallace]

1. Great idea!

Let's bypass the cheapest ways to power ourselves for the next billion or two years and build nuclear reactors.

Brilliant!!!

[Maslo55]

2. LFTR power

would be cheaper than coal power. With factory production of SMR LFTRs, it can eventually get to 1 cent per KWh. No other realistic technology that I know of approaches such capability. This is not traditional LWR nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Economy_and_efficiency

[Bob Wallace]

3. Geeezzeeeee - here we go again...

Nuclear would be cheaper than coal.

Hitting your thumb with a can of beans would hurt less than hitting your thumb with a sledgehammer.

What! The smart thing would be to do neither?

Brilliant!!!!

--

Factory production of SMF LFTRs would eventually get power down to 1 cent per kWh.

After we built a few hundred thousand SMF LFTRs in order to achieve economy of scale. In the meantime we would have huge warehouses full of SMF LFTRs because few communities are going to allow someone to stick a nuclear reactor in their backyard.

Brilliant!!!

--

Ask yourself.

If SMF LFTRs are the best thing since sliced bread then why is China not popping them out?

Why is China ramping up their wind and solar industries?

[Maslo55]

4. Its like asking

Why havent we build jet liners right after we invented airplanes, since they are obviously better than propeller planes. Not because propeller planes are better than jet liners, but because the jet technology was not yet developed at the time.

Similarly, its because solar and wind and coal plants are already existing developed technologies and LFTR SMRs are not yet developed - and China is power hungry now. That does not tell you which way would actually be better in the long run, or which technology has greater potential for the future.

If LFTR has not the potential it is claimed to have, why is Chinese government starting a billion dollar program to develop them, as well as several startup companies around the world (Flibe Energy, Transatomic Power, Thorenco LLC, the Australian-Czech joint venture)? Why there recently was a delegation of scientists from Chinese Academy of Sciences sent to ORNL lab to salvage all the know-how about molten salt reactor technology from the cold war MSRE research program?

And why is China also massively ramping up their traditional nuclear power generation?
China has one of the most ambitious nuclear power programs in the world. As of 2011, the People's Republic of China has 14 nuclear power reactors spread out over 4 separate sites and 27 under construction, with plans to have over 80 GWe (6% - more than France at 63 GW) of installed capacity by 2020, and a further increase to more than 200 GW (16%) by 2030, as agreed in the 22 March 2006 government "Long-term development plan for nuclear power industry from 2005 to 2020".

Problems with NIMBYism can be overcome, since LFTR is not traditional nuclear, but passively safe Gen IV reactor. And economic advantages in the form of low electric bill would speak louder. Money always speaks louder.

[Bob Wallace]

6. Doesn't make sense...

We didn't build jet liners right after we invented airplanes because we hadn't yet invented jet engines.

We invented jet engines and used them in war machines, where cost plays an almost nonexistent role. Then we rolled them on to public use as we figured out how to make them affordable enough for civilian use.

We've built small reactors at very great expense for war machines. We haven't figured out how to make them affordable for civilian use. There may be a bunch of wantta-be companies, but that does not mean that they can crank out a SMR that can produce cheap electricity. If they could, they would.

Why is China ramping up traditional nuclear power? Most likely because 1) while large scale reactors do not produce cheap electricity they produce cheaper electricity than would SMTs and 2) China can site a nuclear reactor any damn place they choose to.

Will China build a LFTR and make it work? They might. They didn't do so well with their pebble bed reactor project. But China has money to burn, let them burn away.

In the meantime China is greatly speeding their installation of wind and solar. China also just launched the world's largest battery storage system for use with renewables.

http://www.yourrenewablenews.com/china%E2%80%99s+state+grid+and+byd+launch+world%E2%80%99s+largest+battery+energy+storage+station_72551.html

China's nuclear program was imitated before solar panels became as cheap as they now are, before battery technology had progressed to where it now is. What China planned several years back may not foretell what China will do as time goes forward.

[Bob Wallace]

8. You do not understand NIMBYism...

People will not hear "passively safe".

They will be busy thinking Hanford/Three Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima.

"Wait, you want to bury a nuclear reactor a few miles from where my children go to school?"

"I don't care how safe you tell me it is, get the Hell out of here!!!!"

[txlibdem]

10. A whole lot of assumptions there bob

When people hear a buried nuclear power plant that is physically incapable of melting they will look over at the coal smoke stacks and realize that coal puts out far more toxic material each year than all the nuclear "disasters" combined.

They'll look at the videos of people lighting their kitchen sink on fire thanks to natural gas fracking and they'll think the fossil fuel folks can take their poison and shove it.

IOW: People aren't as gullible as you think they are.

[Bob Wallace]

11. And then they'll look at the solar panels on their roof...

And the clean power coming from wind farms.

Then they'll ask themselves "Why should we let these people put reactors in our neighborhoods? They've lied to us in the past, why should we trust them now when there is absolutely no need to take the risk."

IOW: People aren't as gullible as you think they are.

[txlibdem]

14. Without adequate excess capacity *and* energy storage, wind / solar will never get us off fossils

People aren't gullible enough to be convinced that pretty soon the sun will shine 24 hours a day and the wind will *always* be providing the same amount of good clean power.

Let's get real. When you add the extra solar panels or solar farms and extra wind farms plus the energy storage and high voltage grid lines that will be needed, the costs are favorable to Gen IV nuclear power.

People in the northern states will look at the costs and the fact that a side benefit of Gen IV nuclear is that you also get heat to use for factories or even to heat commercial or apartment buildings in winter: giving us a double whammy to defeat fossil fuels (ask folks up north what their heating oil bill was last winter and they'll give you an ear full).

Cost is a factor but so is the fact that we need to get rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible in order to avoid the most severe effects of climate change: we need to use everything we can get our hands on to get rid of fossils.

Solar and wind are the most important parts of our plan to end fossil fuels and make America energy independent but we need ALL of the zero-carbon energy sources and we need to rethink how we're doing just about everything. Once we've gotten rid of all fossil fuel use then we can start to get rid of the Gen IV nuclear plants as well until we're 100% renewable energy.

[Bob Wallace]

19. You have zero basis on which to make that claim...

There are no Gen IV reactors. We don't know if they will work, much less what they might cost.

You want to get rid of fossil fuels ASAP?

Here's a hint: Do not wait around for several hundred Gen IV reactors to be built. Start right now with technology that is proven to work and build the hell out of it.

It will be a decade or two before we know if any of the Gen IV ideas are valid.

[txlibdem]

27. Which claim are you even talking about? Do you have proof?

Your post does nothing to further your claim, nothing to point out which of the several points in my post "have zero basis," nothing to point out *why* there is zero basis. Nothing.

[FSSF]

23. Without existing, gen IV nuclear will never get us off fossils

Key point here and the one Bob is trying to make.

[txlibdem]

28. What is the title of this OP? Is it "Let's talk about what we have now?" No.

Key point here is that you and Bob post and post but have no clue what the OP is actually about.

[Maslo55]

16. Because if LFTR performs as expected

it would be significantly cheaper than anything short of cold fusion, wind and solar included.

[Bob Wallace]

20. And if elephants could fly...

we could paint advertisements on their sides.

You do realize that your hopes of a nuclear future are built on untested ideas, do you not?

You also realize, I hope, that nuclear has never been cheap and there is no reason to believe that it could become cheap. That over and over and over the nuclear industry has promised cheap and delivered very expensive.

Now if the Chinese build a LFTR plant, get it to work, and get it to produce cheap electricity we can make some part of our energy mix. But until that happens can we please quit claiming that the only hope for humankind is to build hundreds of nuclear reactors?

[txlibdem]

34. Never saw the movie "Operation: Dumbo Drop?"

I agree with your point that we need to start *now* building as much solar and wind as we can. I'm still questioning why the fossil fuels industry receives $72 Billion a year in government subsidies, then they put their headquarters in a PO box in the Caymans and pay ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

But we cannot discount any of the potential new sources of *zero carbon* energy sources that are just around the corner.

[Bob Wallace]

36. Around the corner...

That's your fantasy.

The nuclear industry is feeding you that line. But they are not producing anything to back them up.

In fact, because of the Fukushima melt-down nuclear has just now gotten more expensive, harder to finance, and impossible to insure.

[txlibdem]

41. The failure of a 1960s design is the basis of your argument?

I guess they should stop making the Edsel, too, then?

[wtmusic]

43. There are 104 nuclear reactors running fully-insured in the US right now

and I would bet one of them is helping you to post your anti-nuclear diatribe right now.

[kristopher]

9. Please be specific

The wiki LFTR page you linked to discusses two designs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Two_versus_Single_fluid

What design are you endorsing and why?

Specifically what problems are solved with the design you suggest?


MIT's policy studies on nuclear fuel cycles repeatedly assign a timeline of between 50-100 years to shift from any fuel cycle to another. What is going to make the LFTR an exception?


You, and other nuclear proponents regularly conflate the advantages of different reactors into one discussion making it sound like a given design has the positive attributes of another design. In the most recent version of pronuclear promotion we are seeing arguments about supposed economic advantages of SMRs appearing frequently with discussions of LFTRs. Please clarify the actual link, if any, between those two apparently separate discussions.

Thanks.

[Maslo55]

17. Two fluid

reactor is regarded as better option now. It offers significantly simpler chemical processing of the fuel salt, easier neutronics and better fuel efficiency, and the design proposed by Flibe Energy makes replacing the graphite element every 5 years an easy task. The added expense is thus more than outweighted by cheaper and simpler online reprocessing chemistry.

I dont know if MIT studies considered non-classical reactors such as MSR, probably not if they reached such conclusion. LFTR would be an exception because its fuel is more abundant (thorium is 4x more abundant than uranium) and does not need any enrichment and fuel rod manufacture for use in a MSR. Its essentialy a simple chemical procedure - take natural Th and mix it with FLiBe salt = fuel salt ready for use.

SMR = small modular reactor. It is about the size of the reactor, which is less than 500 MW. The type of SMR can be anything from LWR to LFTR. SMR LFTR combines advantages of both SMRs and LFTRs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

[kristopher]

21. I'm sorry, I thought I asked for specifics.

Specifically what problems are solved with the design you suggest?

I thought the two designs were compared adequately at the wiki link, so here I'm asking what problems found in the current once-through fuel cycle do you expect this version of the reactor to solve? Would you mind addressing that?

MIT's policy studies on nuclear fuel cycles repeatedly assign a timeline of between 50-100 years to shift from any fuel cycle to another. What is going to make the LFTR an exception?

You wrote, "I dont know if MIT studies considered non-classical reactors such as MSR, probably not if they reached such conclusion."
Actually I believe that the very pronuclear folks at MIT examined every conceivable option and that their timeline is based on far more than the relative abundance of fuel. Is that your reply to the question of what problem is solved by LFTR design, a scarcity of uranium? One point MIT made about all closed loop and breeder technologies is that there simply is no shortage of uranium so if that is your rationale it is a weak one.
Given that your take on fuel availability is fundamentally incorrect, I'm not sure I would accept the oversimplification of the thorium fuel cycle you've offered. True of false, that claim doesn't speak at all to the considerations that are involved in the conclusion by MIT that it takes 50-100 years to move to a new fuel cycle.
What specifically is it about the LFTR two fluid design that makes you believe it can enable a transition faster than any other technology?

LFTRs are not presently available agreed?
The known economics of the technologies that ARE presently available tell us that within the next 30 years renewable energy sources are going to dominate the world energy systems *and* that the performance they will deliver is going to be more dependable than what is presently available. How do you think that will affect the way the public reacts to neighborhood nuclear plants?

You, and other nuclear proponents regularly conflate the advantages of different reactors into one discussion making it sound like a given design has the positive attributes of another design. In the most recent version of pronuclear promotion we are seeing arguments about supposed economic advantages of SMRs appearing frequently with discussions of LFTRs. Please clarify the actual link, if any, between those two apparently separate discussions.

You responded that, "SMR = small modular reactor. It is about the size of the reactor, which is less than 500 MW. The type of SMR can be anything from LWR to LFTR. SMR LFTR combines advantages of both SMRs and LFTRs."

Thanks, but I was aware of that. What I'm asking is specifically what advantage do you see they have in common? Size is a characteristic; for it to be an advantage it has to aid in achieving a goal. What is the advantage or advantages that you think the LFTR will have that you think are exemplified by the SMR of today?

[Maslo55]

24. specifics are in the links

"I thought the two designs were compared adequately at the wiki link, so here I'm asking what problems found in the current once-through fuel cycle do you expect this version of the reactor to solve? Would you mind addressing that?"

Read the advantages section in the Wiki, there is a good summary.
- increased safety and proliferation resistance
- nuclear waste issue would be essentially solved (waste from a LFTR reaches safe levels after just 300 years, it can also burn current waste)
- far cheaper fuel which is longterm sustainable (not hundreds but thousands of years)
- no refueling outages due to continual refueling (increased capacity factor)
- far better load following
- various economic advantages during construction (it does not need the most expensive item in a light water reactor, a high-pressure reactor vessel for the core, containment structure only slightly bigger than the reactor vessel can be used, instead of a thousandfold bigger in volume like in LWR, due to high temperature operation efficient and simple Brayton cycle turbines can be used, which reduces the cost of auxiliary equipment (major capital expenses) by 50% or more
- low waste heat - it can be air-cooled, which is critical for use in many regions where water is scarce (does not need huge cooling towers)
- fission products stable after 10 years include many valuable elements (rare earths and medically valuable products)

"The known economics of the technologies that ARE presently available tell us that within the next 30 years renewable energy sources are going to dominate the world energy systems"

And the physics tell us that without significant world grid overhaul and massive amounts of storage, intermittent renewables can never supply more than 1/3 of grid electricity reliably. The step from 0% to 15% of intermittent energy sources in a grid is just not comparable in terms of grid dynamics to the step from 30% to 45%, or 45% to 60%. LFTR and other nuclear delivers continuous power always with nameplate capacity independent of weather, 24/7. We already have a grid with almost 80% nuclear and it is very stable (France).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Simple extrapolation of current trends (caused by huge government subsidies per TWh compared to competition btw) 30 years into the future is a poor way of prediction.

"Thanks, but I was aware of that. What I'm asking is specifically what advantage do you see they have in common? Size is a characteristic; for it to be an advantage it has to aid in achieving a goal. What is the advantage or advantages that you think the LFTR will have that you think are exemplified by the SMR of today?"

I have already answered that. SMR LFTRs can be mass produced in a factory and then brought where needed, decreasing construction cost per unit.

[FSSF]

25. Some things.

It appears your only source is the wiki which is it self not well sourced, lot's of blogs and news sources for something so technical and complex for which you would expect a lot of technical paper and critical studies. I feel the page is quite bias as well (that's my bias opinion of course).

Here's a quote from the most recent MIT study from the appendix about AHTR/MSRs which sums it up nicely :

"As a new reactor concept, there have been limited studies—thus the difficulty to credibly assess this concept."
(http://www.mit.edu/~jparsons/publications/MIT%20Future_of_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle.pdf)

It also suggests USA carry on with LWRs and the once through cycle into the foreseeable future and says this about Thorium cycles for use with current reactors:

"The technology of thorium fuel does not offer sufficient incentives from a cost or waste point of view to easily penetrate the market."

On France:
France's grid is over saturated with inflexible nuclear power plants (that's why the dump underpriced electricity on Europe). 100% nuclear is impossible unless the technology becomes suitable for peak loads.

On the 100% WWS 2030 study:
A blog is not a proper critique of a study published in a peer review journal I'm afraid.

[kristopher]

30. FSSF has already provided some important points for you to consider...

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

So through wiki you are claiming that "2 fluid" liquid fluoride thorium reactors improve on the existing once through uranium fuel cycle in these area:

- increased safety and proliferation resistance
- nuclear waste issue would be essentially solved (waste from a LFTR reaches safe levels after just 300 years, it can also burn current waste)
- far cheaper fuel which is longterm sustainable (not hundreds but thousands of years)
- no refueling outages due to continual refueling (increased capacity factor)
- far better load following
- various economic advantages during construction (it does not need the most expensive item in a light water reactor, a high-pressure reactor vessel for the core, containment structure only slightly bigger than the reactor vessel can be used, instead of a thousandfold bigger in volume like in LWR, due to high temperature operation efficient and simple Brayton cycle turbines can be used, which reduces the cost of auxiliary equipment (major capital expenses) by 50% or more
- low waste heat - it can be air-cooled, which is critical for use in many regions where water is scarce (does not need huge cooling towers)
- fission products stable after 10 years include many valuable elements (rare earths and medically valuable products)


There are a number of problems with that list; you might find this blog to be interesting since it places those unsubstantiated claims into perspective.

For example,

...The MSR and the LFTR (or lifter) reactor has something of a cult following on line. Unfortunately, this has led, through a process of what amounts to internet Chinese whispers to a lot of myths and miss-conceptions about the LFTR building up. Up to the point where its started to take on aspects of a Scientific Cargo Cult. As I go along with the technical analysis of this reactor concept, I’ll be taking the opportunity to debunk a couple of these, as they do a disservice to the design, and get in the way of the genuine science.

"...One other misconception on the internet is the view that a LFTR reactor will produce almost no nuclear waste, as the following You-tube video implies (or see this “activists” banner here). This is not the case. All the while during the plant’s operating life that chemical plant will be producing nuclear waste material, and as discussed earlier some of that is pretty “nasty stuff”. Not a lot of it per day, but it all adds up! Also the supporters of the LFTR seem to assume that this CPP can operate with 100% efficiency (i.e remove all the radioactive poisons). This would be very technically challenging, especially in the LFTR case given the importance about separating out of U-232 (and its Thallium-208 payload) from U-233 or indeed removal of protactinium-233 as well as a host of other nuclear “poisons” discussed. Build up of these in the core both leads to increased irradiation of the core as well as the eventual shutdown of the nuclear reaction process altogether.

An CPP facility capable of that level of operating efficiency would likely be physically very large. Given that it will be working with radioactive materials, and the real radiological hazard is a pipe burst (an all too common occurrence and any chemical plant, and especially likely at these sort of working temperatures and radiation levels), we would thus need to put the CPP underneath our concrete containment dome. Obviously a large CPP will not only be expensive to build and maintain but greatly increase the size of this containment structure, further increasing reactor construction costs as well as increasing construction time (and reducing the number of said reactors we comission in any given time period).

And of course the supporters of the LF reactor concept have yet to come up with a functional design of an CPP. I’ve seen various dusty line drawings of the 1970’s ORNL proposal, you can see them yourself here and here, but that’s it. I would firstly note that materials science and chemical processing technology has moved on hugely in the last 40 years, so I doubt it would be sensible to build an CPP as shown in these plans. A new one would have to be redesigned (all but) from scratch."

A great deal more at:
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/


ETA: I would particularly love to hear how the LFTR 2 fluid reactor will "burn current waste". Would you explain in detail how that works?

Don't disappear on us, ok? We are counting on you to have an honest and open discussion.

[Maslo55]

32. There are far more problems

with that blog. He seems to completely misunderstand the technology, and is biased against it. It has been thoroughly debunked here:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/08/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/07/very-strange-technical-critique-of.html

"To those of you, here's a quick summary of some of the things in this critique which are complete nonsense, so you can judge for yourselves (I'll go into a bit more detail after the summary):
Summary of some of the biggest howlers:
-Claims MSRs have "Isotope Separation Plants" which separate 233U and 232U (the trace contaminant)
-Warns of hazardous fission products, such as thorium isotope "T-232" [sic], which supposedly is a disadvantage of thorium-fuelled reactors because of its 14 billion year half-life
-Warns that electrolyzing nuclear fuel salts is energy-intensive
-Warns that heat inputs in fluoride reprocessing are energy-intensive
-Asserts that thorium MSRs are constrained to a lower temperature limit of 1,110 °C, the melting point of pure ThF4. Concludes MSRs must be built entirely from ceramics
-"Obviously, once we exhaust the world’s U-235 stockpiles, LFTR’s and any other Thorium fuelled reactors will cease to function."
-Argues against using molten fuel salt as a working fluid in a gas turbine(!?)"

Regarding the SNR burning, why repeat what has been said. Here is a thread about it on EfT forum:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3003&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

If you really want to go for a quick waste burner, then faster spectrum LFTR or even chloride based MSR are more preferable. Normal thermal spectrum LFTR can also eat it, but it will take longer and decrease the neutronic efficiency. Still, it is possible.

[kristopher]

37. Actually there aren't.

That list at wiki is pure garbage that conflates the benefits of several different reactor designs and acts as if they are all the same thing. Your attempt to tapdance around the totally bullshit claim that the lftr is going to burn up existing waste is a perfect example of a straight, outright attempt at deception.

[Maslo55]

38. LFTR

CAN burn SNF waste, so the Wiki is correct. All I said is that is you want a dedicated waste burner, there are better routes than thermal LFTR. But it is possible to burn all our nuclear waste even with thermal LFTR, it will just take longer. Now that may not be a disadvantage - TRUs are a good way to priming the LFTRs afterall. The longer they last, the less of the bred U233 would we need to start new LFTRs. In that case SNF is a resource, not a "waste", so it may even be desirable.

[kristopher]

39. Prove it.

Show an *authoritative source* that describes how the 2 fluid LFTER you claim to be speaking about is both going to not produce waste while simultaneously destroying the accumulated spent nuclear fuel that poses our waste problems.

The list you are touting is a blend of the benefits of several different designs and cannot be achieved in one design.

It is a blatant attempt to deceive.

[Maslo55]

40. here you go

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/FFR_chap14.pdf

[kristopher]

42. That doesn't support your claim.

Your claim cannot be supported because it is false.

The wiki list is hype, not an accurate presentation of the capabilities of individual designs associated with thorium or breeder technologies.

[FSSF]

22. People in the solar industry think they can get solar at or less than the cost of coal much faster.

You probably don't hear about them as much because they spend of there time doing things rather than talking about paper reactors.

1366 Technologies got a $7,000,000 research grant from the DOE to work on their direct wafer technology in 2010. They got a $150,000,000 loan guarantee in September of 2011 to start manufacturing.

"1366’s mission is to make the cost of solar power competitive with coal power.

Our approach is simple. We take a proven, safe, abundant material –silicon– and develop practical manufacturing solutions that increase efficiency and dramatically cut cost.

Our manufacturing solutions are compatible with existing supply chain processes, delivering a large impact without the complexity.

1366 has a team of veteran scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, including MIT professor and photovoltaic industry expert Dr. Emanuel Sachs, with extensive experience in process and machine design.

The initial technology for 1366 was developed by our team at MIT and is now being commercialized.

The science is understood. The material is abundant. The products work.
All that is left is to build the largest manufacturing industry in the history of mankind. This is what we intend to do."

http://www.1366tech.com/about-1366/

Standford Ovshinsky thinks he could do solar cheaper than coal on a large scale very soon.

"BAS: Can you explain your new assertion about what you have achieved in terms of photovoltaic panel manufacturing?

Ovshinsky: I can show now that we can achieve solar energy, with good profit, at a cost less than that of burning of fossil fuel. That is a revolutionary statement, and it can’t be done overnight, but it can and will be done. The plant would be an ordinary-sized plant of 150,000 square feet which would put out a photovoltaic product of one gigawatt per year. Unless we start making a gigawatt in many plants, the cost of photovoltaics will never get down to the cost of coal— which is what global society needs.
This can be done with proper support in no more than several years. The cost of the production machine will be a few pennies per watt, $350 million at the most. I’ve proven in the past that the first machine always costs more than the subsequent ones. When you go into a high enough volume production, all costs come down in the steepest decline that you can think of. And you want to build as many machines as possible in every city in every country."

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/3/1.full

Sure none of these projects will ever work as well in reality as breeders, or molten salt reactors, or fusion reactors look on paper. That's mostly because they're actually being done.

[kristopher]

29. "to build the largest manufacturing industry in the history of mankind"

"The science is understood.

The material is abundant.

The products work.

All that is left is to build the largest manufacturing industry in the history of mankind.

This is what we intend to do."

Ovshinsky: I can show now that we can achieve solar energy, with good profit, at a cost less than that of burning of fossil fuel. That is a revolutionary statement, and it can’t be done overnight, but it can and will be done. The plant would be an ordinary-sized plant of 150,000 square feet which would put out a photovoltaic product of one gigawatt per year. Unless we start making a gigawatt in many plants, the cost of photovoltaics will never get down to the cost of coal— which is what global society needs.

This can be done with proper support in no more than several years. The cost of the production machine will be a few pennies per watt, $350 million at the most. I’ve proven in the past that the first machine always costs more than the subsequent ones. When you go into a high enough volume production, all costs come down in the steepest decline that you can think of. And you want to build as many machines as possible in every city in every country."

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/3/1.full

http://www.1366tech.com/about-1366/


That deserved repeating. Thanks.

[wtmusic]

5. K&R.

If Obama doesn't start aggressively promoting Gen IV nuclear he will lose votes. Too much at stake.

[Bob Wallace]

7. Road apples...

About the only people who think Gen IV is an answer to our energy future are likely to vote for Ron Paul regardless of what Obama does.

It's an issue for the unrealistic....

[txlibdem]

12. So you think it's ok to villainize people just for disagreeing with your anti-nuke views?

I don't think that's a very nice thing to post... but apparently a majority of people think it's perfectly okay to claim that people who feel Gen IV will have a role in our future power mix are card carrying Libertarian nut jobs???

[Bob Wallace]

13. Nut jobs...

I'd tack that label on those who think that Gen IV reactors already exist - that they've been proven to work and could be built at an affordable price.

YMMV

[txlibdem]

15. Your post is offensive

Nobody said that Gen IV, SMR or LFTR nuclear power plants are already built. You made up that claim yourself.

[Bob Wallace]

18. You haven't noticed all the people...

who keep insisting that all we have to do is to start cranking out liquid thorium itsy-bitsy reactors?

People act as if Gen IV is available through catalog purchase when the fact is we're still dealing with Gen III stuff. There's an amazing myth of the thorium liquid whatever most wonderful reactor which seems to be built mostly on U-Toob videos.

I'm offended by all the people who let themselves be mislead by the nuclear fan-boys....

[txlibdem]

26. So you're not against misleading people, just as long as it's not toward the pro-nuclear side

Anyone with common sense will understand that we are going to have to use all of our ingenuity, all sources of energy that do not produce green house gases during their use, or we will be stuck with deadly fossil fuels forever.

[Bob Wallace]

31. You are doing the math wrong...

We will have a limited amount of resources available to make the transition away from fossil fuels.

We need to spend what we have on the least expensive and fastest to bring on line.

Not all sources are created equal.

[Maslo55]

33. And

not all nuclear energy is created equal.

[Bob Wallace]

35. Yep. Some of it is really expensive...

and some of it is really, really expensive.