Jan 17 2013: A further note on thorium. It's going to take me quite some time to sort out this area. Studies such as the one from MIT (http://mitei.mit.edu/publications/reports-studies/future-nuclear-fuel-cycle) or the pointers to the failures of India's program are cited by detractors as showing LFTR is not a good investment. It's frustrating to read, though, because, 1) I can't find a head-to-head debate on LFTR's pro's and cons (just repeated claims that thorium makes a lousy replacement fuel for current reactor technology, which appears to not be what advocates are advocating), and 2) all the vitriol from both advocates and detractors.
Is there any sober discussion out there between detractors and advocates (for us poor folk who don't have enough background to come to our own conclusion)?
Jan 17 2013: Thanks, Shawn, for the pointer to thorium liquid fueled reactors. Really exciting to me. I had not known about that technology.
I'm working on an open letter to a group of climate scientists who wrote to the President urging him to continue rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline (see 350.org blog). That request is all well and good, but I think 350.org, climate scientists, and others need to focus on getting alternative energy such as thorium-based fission into the news and public consciousness. All I see in the press and in popular anti-global warming movements is push back on fossil fuels but little push forward on what we can do technologically to get out of this mess. (This could partially be because of my own ignorance of what everyone is up to or due to bias of the press, I don't know. But I'll happily make a fool of myself in trying to push for technological solutions.)
Given that the Obama administration has signaled that "climate change" is one of its top 5 priorities for its second term, we need to ratchet up the pressure somehow. I see that someone created a White House petition for thorium-based fission (and even renewed it last June). Certainly that could be resurrected once again, but perhaps also with a focus on nationalization of the electric grid and utilities, and preceded with a push to get some groups with big mailing lists on board _before_ opening the petition. Other avenues include the open letter I mentioned.
Jan 17 2013: Science could use a few more good sales people like Mr. Sadoway. :-) As for the "real" solution, unless you know what that is and when we can use it, I think we need to move now. We must get the public to understand the true cost of burning fossil fuel (i.e., famine, floods, hurricanes, drought, loss of continental coasts, disappearance of entire island nations, and so on). Perhaps then the cost of moving to alternatives will be more palatable, particularly if we insulate the markets from those costs through, for example, nationalization of the electrical grid and utilities. I don't care what technology is used (that's for people more knowledgeable than I to determine), but somehow we've got to get the true cost of fossil fuels brought into the discussion when debating alternative energies. (On this score, I am quite excited about Thorium Liquid Fueled reactor technology that Shawn mentions. I had not known about that until he made his post.)
Jan 15 2013: I spent many years in software engineering and a few years before that as a technical writer. I have no background related to this discussion (other than being keenly interested and concerned).
Jan 15 2013: As for Republicans, I’m afraid they’re going to gerrymander moderate, rational Republican candidates out of the picture altogether (via primary fights and fixed House seats).
I agree with you about excluding lobbyists, I was just sort of gasping at the difficulty of it in today’s politics.
Your discussion of VCs and solar is very interesting to me. If you have a pointer to this background info, please share it. (Again, I find myself with more time recently, and I’d like to come up to speed. I can’t think of a more interesting/important area to get involved in and learn about than global warming and what to do about it technologically and politically.)
Jan 15 2013: Thanks for the pointers to those articles. I will read those.
As for “without lobbying influence,” man, is that a tough one. Here in California, I don’t think state regulators even write laws anymore. They simply get behind this-or-that lobby-written legislation.
The idea about Eisenhower and the interstate highway system is another good one (and instructive). It’s another idea I can add to my own thinking.
(A side note: I remember when many Republicans were quite concerned about the environment and were responsible for important legislation in that area both nationally and at the state level--my, how times have changed.)
I was aware of the funding for liquid metal batteries (including the funding from Bill Gates). For me, the petition represents my frustration with the national dialog. I mean, for goodness sake, the only national news show to cover liquid metal batteries so far (i.e., last time I looked) is the Colbert Report—a fake news show!
I’m also hoping to influence the work of organizations such as 350.org to add pushing for new technologies (such as liquid metal batteries) to their political strategy. Of course, I may not get anywhere with this, but I am learning valuable lessons; e.g., getting random people on the street to even talk about global warming (let alone sign a petition) is like pulling teeth.
Jan 15 2013: Rob, your understanding of market forces and analysis is much deeper than mine (though I would like to become better informed). That said, the sheer enormity of the consequences of continuing on our current path is staggering, both financially and in the cost of human life and environmental treasure. (Already some are connecting the dots between famines in parts of Africa with global warming. Whether or not that connection is legitimate at this point, I don’t know. But if not legitimate yet, it will be soon enough.) So, on the face of it, it seems that any approach must be radically different from anything attempted so far.
So I find your idea of making the electrical grid a public utility for a few decades exactly the kind thinking we need. Having recently taken early retirement from a big tech company, I have more time on my hands and I plan to use some of it in this area. I recently created a petition to the White House to try to push the administration into looking at liquid metal battery technology (see https://sites.google.com/site/liquidmetalbatteries/ for details). I’m having trouble getting more than a few dozen signatures, though, so I’m pleading with some big organizations for help.
Nationalizing the electrical grid for a few decades sounds like area worth pushing for. I really like that idea. In times of national (or, in this case, world) emergencies, it is exactly the job of the government to step in the interest of the welfare of everyone. (Of course, such an approach can be abused, but every approach has its downside and danger.) The free market is simply incapable of intervening in a timely manner. As for what I can do personally, I don’t know what else to do but educate (via petitions like the the one above and other avenues—e.g., pushing newspapers and other media to do stories on liquid metal battery technology).
Somehow we have to change the focus to real solutions. I really appreciate this discussion. It’s got me thinking in new ways.
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
A reply on Talk: Donald Sadoway: The missing link to renewable energy
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
Is there any sober discussion out there between detractors and advocates (for us poor folk who don't have enough background to come to our own conclusion)?
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
I'm working on an open letter to a group of climate scientists who wrote to the President urging him to continue rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline (see 350.org blog). That request is all well and good, but I think 350.org, climate scientists, and others need to focus on getting alternative energy such as thorium-based fission into the news and public consciousness. All I see in the press and in popular anti-global warming movements is push back on fossil fuels but little push forward on what we can do technologically to get out of this mess. (This could partially be because of my own ignorance of what everyone is up to or due to bias of the press, I don't know. But I'll happily make a fool of myself in trying to push for technological solutions.)
Given that the Obama administration has signaled that "climate change" is one of its top 5 priorities for its second term, we need to ratchet up the pressure somehow. I see that someone created a White House petition for thorium-based fission (and even renewed it last June). Certainly that could be resurrected once again, but perhaps also with a focus on nationalization of the electric grid and utilities, and preceded with a push to get some groups with big mailing lists on board _before_ opening the petition. Other avenues include the open letter I mentioned.
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
A reply on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
I agree with you about excluding lobbyists, I was just sort of gasping at the difficulty of it in today’s politics.
Your discussion of VCs and solar is very interesting to me. If you have a pointer to this background info, please share it. (Again, I find myself with more time recently, and I’d like to come up to speed. I can’t think of a more interesting/important area to get involved in and learn about than global warming and what to do about it technologically and politically.)
A comment on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
As for “without lobbying influence,” man, is that a tough one. Here in California, I don’t think state regulators even write laws anymore. They simply get behind this-or-that lobby-written legislation.
The idea about Eisenhower and the interstate highway system is another good one (and instructive). It’s another idea I can add to my own thinking.
(A side note: I remember when many Republicans were quite concerned about the environment and were responsible for important legislation in that area both nationally and at the state level--my, how times have changed.)
I was aware of the funding for liquid metal batteries (including the funding from Bill Gates). For me, the petition represents my frustration with the national dialog. I mean, for goodness sake, the only national news show to cover liquid metal batteries so far (i.e., last time I looked) is the Colbert Report—a fake news show!
I’m also hoping to influence the work of organizations such as 350.org to add pushing for new technologies (such as liquid metal batteries) to their political strategy. Of course, I may not get anywhere with this, but I am learning valuable lessons; e.g., getting random people on the street to even talk about global warming (let alone sign a petition) is like pulling teeth.
A comment on Conversation: In a rigorous analysis is this "missing link" a solution or evidence of a much larger and systemic policy, market, and investment problem?
So I find your idea of making the electrical grid a public utility for a few decades exactly the kind thinking we need. Having recently taken early retirement from a big tech company, I have more time on my hands and I plan to use some of it in this area. I recently created a petition to the White House to try to push the administration into looking at liquid metal battery technology (see https://sites.google.com/site/liquidmetalbatteries/ for details). I’m having trouble getting more than a few dozen signatures, though, so I’m pleading with some big organizations for help.
Nationalizing the electrical grid for a few decades sounds like area worth pushing for. I really like that idea. In times of national (or, in this case, world) emergencies, it is exactly the job of the government to step in the interest of the welfare of everyone. (Of course, such an approach can be abused, but every approach has its downside and danger.) The free market is simply incapable of intervening in a timely manner. As for what I can do personally, I don’t know what else to do but educate (via petitions like the the one above and other avenues—e.g., pushing newspapers and other media to do stories on liquid metal battery technology).
Somehow we have to change the focus to real solutions. I really appreciate this discussion. It’s got me thinking in new ways.