Environment & Energy

PamW

(1,825 posts)

109. However...

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:33 PM

Dec 2011

Those DOE projections were made before solar experienced the tremendous price drops, which are expected to continue.
==========================

However, your projections and costs are BEFORE the collapse of Solyndra.

They include subsidies and loans which are NOT going to continue.

The bureaucrats at DOE went against the advice of the scientists at the national labs like myself; and approved the Solyndra deal. The fallout from that blunder cost the job of someone with the rank of Program Director. Another blunder would take out anyone of that rank or lower. Therefore, the lower ranking bureaucrats are not going to be sticking their necks out and opposing the national lab scientists in the future, I suspect.

The national lab scientists, of which I am one; are pretty much in solidarity with which direction we think the USA's energy policy should go. Since the bureaucrats are not going to oppose us over fear of losing their jobs; odds are we scientists are going to get our way in the future.

Besides, we only need to get our way for a couple years or so; and the financial and capital environment will take care of the rest.

Yes - the solar proponents surely torpedoed their own ship, from where I stand.

PamW

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

149 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who Killed the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? [View all] wtmusic Dec 2011 OP

So what's the narrative here? SpoonFed Dec 2011 #1

The "narrative" is that not all nuclear power options are the same wtmusic Dec 2011 #7

But all of the nuclear power options HAVE been evaluated kristopher Dec 2011 #9

Ha ha ha. Nice try. txlibdem Dec 2011 #10

Nothing more to be done... PamW Dec 2011 #13

Uh, no, they haven't. It's all been LWRs and fast spectrum. joshcryer Dec 2011 #22

Wrong as usual.... PamW Dec 2011 #23

That's not after TMI? joshcryer Dec 2011 #25

Pg 75, 76 MIT "The Future of Nuclear Power" 2003 kristopher Dec 2011 #26

Note 1 pg 17 MIT "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" 2010 kristopher Dec 2011 #27

LFTR? Maslo55 Dec 2011 #86

Yes, I'm not looking at economics, I'm looking at environmental considerations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #28

You are hyping thin air. kristopher Dec 2011 #30

700+ environmental organizations think that we should sit on nuclear waste... joshcryer Dec 2011 #32

Read what MIT said. kristopher Dec 2011 #34

MIT says long term closed cycle may become something. joshcryer Dec 2011 #35

1979 - 1994 is also after TMI PamW Dec 2011 #39

Fast reactor funding dropped dramatically after TMI. joshcryer Dec 2011 #40

I watch the video - I wonder if you did... PamW Dec 2011 #42

Nice video PamW Dec 2011 #43

This is really untrue. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #143

EVs on the grid... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #144

And you know that how? kristopher Jan 2012 #145

Are these the same people who... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #19

The DOD wanted all reactors to be dual purpose -- provide plutonium for weapons, as well as power. eppur_se_muova Dec 2011 #2

BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2011 #12

Documentation: PamW Dec 2011 #18

Hold the mayo... Wilms Dec 2011 #24

Watts Bar is a commercial power reactor jpak Dec 2011 #44

Elaboration... PamW Dec 2011 #47

Oh yeah - the same uranium enrichment plants that produced HEU for bombs jpak Dec 2011 #45

False equation... PamW Dec 2011 #46

Iran & North Korea jpak Dec 2011 #49

Did it ever occur to you.... PamW Dec 2011 #62

Did it ever occur to you that the US commercial nuclear fuel cycle was developed to produce bombs jpak Dec 2011 #91

NO - because I KNOW better PamW Dec 2011 #97

North Korea's plutonium production reactor had an electrical generating capacity of 5 MWe jpak Dec 2011 #98

Hardly a "power reactor" PamW Dec 2011 #99

What's the significance? PamW Dec 2011 #101

That dubious honor goes to Admiral Rickoven txlibdem Dec 2011 #3

We need to give this technology a serious try. LAGC Dec 2011 #4

The way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #5

We cannot Maslo55 Dec 2011 #87

Prove - beyond a shadow of a doubt... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #93

renewables Maslo55 Dec 2011 #95

You want to set the limit at 20 years? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #104

20 years will be not enough Maslo55 Dec 2011 #105

Correct - renewables are not cheaper PamW Dec 2011 #106

Cherry pick much? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #107

However... PamW Dec 2011 #109

Solyndra has nothing to do with it... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #111

Upon second thought... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #116

WRONG!!! PamW Dec 2011 #119

Come on Pam... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #126

WRONG! PamW Dec 2011 #129

Price-Anderson liability insurance isn't free PamW Dec 2011 #118

Gosh, that's a huge amount of money... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #127

Again... PamW Dec 2011 #110

Right now... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #113

Made up numbers... PamW Dec 2011 #120

No Pam... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #125

Credentials? PamW Dec 2011 #130

My credentials? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #133

Duh! Obvious! PamW Jan 2012 #135

Well, I look at your postings... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #141

More effect... PamW Dec 2011 #131

Hate to tell you... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #134

YES!!! PamW Jan 2012 #136

Geezeeeee..... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #137

Well get the job done... PamW Jan 2012 #139

The science says... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #140

You don't know the pricing algorithms PamW Jan 2012 #138

Your quote... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #142

You're not "getting it"... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #108

Come on Bob... he/she is clearly going for the laughs... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #115

No. SpoonFed Dec 2011 #20

you are obviously Maslo55 Dec 2011 #96

You're funny... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #112

Factual arguments ahead Maslo55 Dec 2011 #117

Those numbers... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #121

About 30-40 years ago... PamW Dec 2011 #124

This... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #128

Here are some of the "wind energy deaths"... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #132

Actually Four people were killed on December 9, 1986 Throckmorton Jan 2012 #149

That "burning" thing... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #122

That Germany thing... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #123

What are the problems with LFTR technology? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #6

Your point is that a lengthy discussion wtmusic Dec 2011 #8

I think what many of us recognize... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #11

Nothing of the sort OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #16

Now ask that same question with regards to IFR. joshcryer Dec 2011 #15

LFTR and IFR are the only nuclear technologies I might advocate. joshcryer Dec 2011 #14

Barry Brock is an Australian Uranium Sales team leader. kristopher Dec 2011 #17

Barry Brook is the Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide. joshcryer Dec 2011 #21

How did he get that post? He isn't a climatologist kristopher Dec 2011 #29

His expertise was conservation biology. joshcryer Dec 2011 #31

He isn't a climatologist so how did he get the Climate Chair? kristopher Dec 2011 #33

His entire acedemic history is suitible for that chair? joshcryer Dec 2011 #36

He might as well be drawing a paycheck directly from the uranium mining industry. kristopher Dec 2011 #37

Speaking at a conference, likely unpaid, hardly merits that observation. joshcryer Dec 2011 #38

Some of the most unresisting imbecility I've seen posted in this forum. wtmusic Dec 2011 #41

South Australia is the hub of uranium mining in AU. kristopher Dec 2011 #55

You just reposted what you posted before. joshcryer Dec 2011 #79

Breaking: Brook was just appointed to judge the Global Energy Prize wtmusic Dec 2011 #82

Nice find. Brook's environmental record remains untarnished by anonymous detractors. joshcryer Dec 2011 #90

Because the University thought he was best suited for the job? Nederland Dec 2011 #69

We all know full well... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #114

I fervently hope it stays dead. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #48

There's another option... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #50

It�s not the energy, it�s the source of the energy OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #51

The damage comes from both the use of the energy and the waste products of its production. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #52

Use of energy does not directly lead to �ecocidal damage� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #53

Of course it does. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #54

Once again, it�s a matter of thinking OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #56

Which do you suppose causes less damage - GliderGuider Dec 2011 #57

Take it as a given that there will be agriculture in the future OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #58

My ideal goal would be to reduce human impact on the planet by 85%. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #59

OK, so energy usage is not the problem in your equation OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #60

The impact of aggregate human activity is the problem. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #63

How did you arrive at .15 for deltaPI? nt wtmusic Dec 2011 #74

My working assumption these days is that GliderGuider Dec 2011 #81

OK - why is human impact 6x what it should be to guarantee long-term sustainability? wtmusic Dec 2011 #83

I base my opinion on the situation around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #84

What's your plan? The one in which we kill 6 billion people... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #61

There is no plan. The required change is too large to be anything except involuntary. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #64

I posted no comments... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #65

The "required change" I talk about has little to do with immediate human welfare. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #66

Well, let's go back to the main (dodged) question... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #67

Re-introduce wolves to California? XemaSab Dec 2011 #68

Only if they're thorium powered drone wolves... nt GliderGuider Dec 2011 #71

Why not just find nice homes for them? redway420 Jan 2012 #146

I thought I was clear. I don't "propose" any mechanism, I think all we have to do is wait. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #70

OK, your route... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #72

I suspect that's going to be largely true. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #73

Sorry, ... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #75

I know it's too doomer for you, we already discussed that. n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #78

With 30,000 dying every day from starvation, it's already well underway wtmusic Dec 2011 #76

Is the rate of starvation related deaths rising? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #77

According to WHO, "only" 150,000 annual deaths are directly attributable to global warming wtmusic Dec 2011 #80

That seems to be from ten year old data... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #85

ahhhh.. the local luddite appeared. Maslo55 Dec 2011 #88

Feels good doesn't it? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #89

I dont understand Maslo55 Dec 2011 #94

Maybe this will help GliderGuider Dec 2011 #100

your position Maslo55 Dec 2011 #102

We're clearly on opposite sides of the fence on this. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #103

A challenger appears! joshcryer Dec 2011 #92

Benford, Bear, and Brin explore the "People first" ideology in their continuation of Asimov's work. hunter Jan 2012 #147

.. Maslo55 Jan 2012 #148