On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:38 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah I like thorium too. I realise it isn't the universal panacea but > seems like a good bet if handled carefully. But we need to get those > suckers up and running asap because if oil production is still increasing, > that isn't good news for the environment. And it *will *peak at some > point, then decline (I mean a relatively near point - all energy production > in the universe will peak and decline eventually of course). >
John suggests above that cautionary measures concerning sustainability, in his words wherein "problems that you think might become serious more than about 15 years in the future is just dumb" is the blind position of people he labels "environmentalists" in blanket fashion. Energy *is perpetually*this problem. Now and in hundreds of hypothetical years. Therefore no, I don't think people looking at climate and sustainability problems long term are ideological idiots by default. This contradicts research and developing technology in the first place (how many years do you think we need for mature designs and regulatory frameworks for thorium, John? Fourteen?), that he bemoans is not being done at large enough scale. I think this very attitude and contradiction is part of acceptance problem of this technology and other candidates. At least small moves are being made in China. My blind spot in advocating it concerns costs, which is all we seem to care about. I'd like some references/links to papers targeting costs, other than an old 1980s rag report I found, that would have potential to push wider acceptance, as the nuclear industry is obviously too invested in their methods and sources. Yes, proponents cite low cost of thorium itself through availability, efficiency, safety in worst case, less pressure and complexity of containment; but I find it hard to tally the costs of new materials required for higher temperatures, the increased corrosion point, the gas distribution system and tritium collection, what kinds of regulation would impose which kinds of costs, costs of separating the various nuclear fission products, and nuclear reprocessing. Yes, long term toxicity of waste is lessened, but we still have a waste problem long term. What about that? I could hide behind "lack of research" for much of this, but I don't know simply. Perhaps John could genuinely enlighten us here. Then it would be easier to make the case for "less wishful thinking/euphoria" around this tech. ISTM somebody needs balls and contrary to our performance fetishes, we'd have to learn and make mistakes (incur losses systematically). It's time (not that I'm optimistic here) that society task government and dominant market forces with these tasks seriously: You have your hands on the dominant levers, well then own up to that: from oil giants to google, they owe. Externalized costs for your success. Experiment wisely and widely, sky's no limit. Pragmatism in absence of local clarity. We can dream, no? PGC > > On 1 April 2014 06:54, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > John Clark has to prove or at least plausibly argue that fossil fuel, >>> pollution etc. is the only viable energy option for the future, which he >>> has not. >>> >> >> And I have not proven that because I have not said it nor do I believe >> it; and that's why I like Thorium. >> >> > His indifference to various kinds of leakage and seepage of fluids, >>> solids, and gas is a lifestyle choice. >>> >> >> And despite all this leakage and seepage the human race is healthier and >> more numerous than it has ever been. >> >> > But quoting uncertainty in climate science: wow, major news John. >>> Really? >>> >> >> Apparently it is major news to some, including some on this very list who >> think climate models are 100% perfect. >> >> > Climate science is complex? Predictions can be faulty with larger >>> variance than thought? My mind is blown. Thanks for enlightening us, John. >>> >> >> You are entirely welcome. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
