Mar 25 2011: Wayne, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are different things. I do think that the media's focus on the nuclear problems in Japan is out of proportion to, say, the hte thousands of people who have already died and the thousands more will will likely die as a result of desdtroyed sanitation systems, lack of food, water, shelter, and everything that comes with not having sufficient electricty for long periods of time in a disaster area.
But on to thorium. The thorium fuel cycle is very different than the uranium fuel cycle. The most promising design is the liquid fluroide thorium reactor, or LFTR for short. I highy recommend checking out http://www.energyfromthorium.com and http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com The ins and outs of the technology are too involved to go into here. But I'll mention a few:
LFTRs run at normal atmospheric pressure
Passive safety systems ensure meltdown will not occur
LFTRs can use our existing nuclear waste as fuel
The waste produced by LFTRs are much less in volume and the worst of the radioactive elements present in the waste are harmful for about 300 years. We have technical and geological solutions to storing waste for this long (in vitrified glass, for example)
Thorium is more plentiful than tin - there is no middle east of thorium.I share concerns about current gen II reactors and think the world's nuclear reactor's are outdated.
Switching to a thorium fuel cycle or building gen III and gen IV uranium-fueled reactors are the way to go moving forward.
Passive cooling systems would have been enough to stop the disaster in Japan. If a 40 year old, outdated reactor built to withstand an 8.2 can take a 9.0 earthquake and then only have it's backup cooling systems fail as a result of a 35 ft tsunami, I think that's a good sign of the safety of nuclear energy. So look up LFTRs and also the integral fast reactor (IFR), another nuclear fuel burning reactor that solves all the problems with traditional nuclear energy.
Jul 29 2010: Lovins does great work, but he is not a nuclear physicist. He's made his entire career on being anti nuclear. And he's pretty much the only "energy expert" who claims we can solve the problem without nuclear.
Jul 22 2010: Questions: How possible would it be replicate this type of farm in other areas/climates? What would an analog for a vegetable/poultry/beef farm look like? Could enough of these farms be created and sustained to meet the food needs of the world?
Jul 22 2010: Paul, you should read his book to understand his arguments more thoroughly. As a lifelong environmentalist, it really got me thinking. It's good to challenge your beliefs from time to time.
When it comes to energy, we have 2 options: coal + renewables or nuclear + renewables. Anyone who has done any research knows the obvious choice. And new reactors offer the ability to burn existing nuclear "waste". What comes out is about 90% less volume so on-site storage is not a problem. Burying the stuff in a hole in Nevada is about the dumbest thing you can do.
As far as GM crops, I'm still a bit hesitant about Brand's positions. I think I'm less concerned with the tech itself and more concerned with the way Monsanto and other corps are acting. Though in his book, he does point out that there are numerous countries developing their own GM breeds, which puts Monsanto at a disadvantage. I think GM should be 'open-source', allowing companies to experiment with their own breeds.
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: THORIUM. Is it really that safe and great alternative to Nuclear? Is it the Other Miracle that Bill Gates is looking for?
But on to thorium. The thorium fuel cycle is very different than the uranium fuel cycle. The most promising design is the liquid fluroide thorium reactor, or LFTR for short. I highy recommend checking out http://www.energyfromthorium.com and http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com The ins and outs of the technology are too involved to go into here. But I'll mention a few:
LFTRs run at normal atmospheric pressure
Passive safety systems ensure meltdown will not occur
LFTRs can use our existing nuclear waste as fuel
The waste produced by LFTRs are much less in volume and the worst of the radioactive elements present in the waste are harmful for about 300 years. We have technical and geological solutions to storing waste for this long (in vitrified glass, for example)
Thorium is more plentiful than tin - there is no middle east of thorium.I share concerns about current gen II reactors and think the world's nuclear reactor's are outdated.
Switching to a thorium fuel cycle or building gen III and gen IV uranium-fueled reactors are the way to go moving forward.
Passive cooling systems would have been enough to stop the disaster in Japan. If a 40 year old, outdated reactor built to withstand an 8.2 can take a 9.0 earthquake and then only have it's backup cooling systems fail as a result of a 35 ft tsunami, I think that's a good sign of the safety of nuclear energy. So look up LFTRs and also the integral fast reactor (IFR), another nuclear fuel burning reactor that solves all the problems with traditional nuclear energy.
A reply on Talk: Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?
A comment on Talk: Dan Barber: How I fell in love with a fish
A reply on Talk: Stewart Brand: 4 environmental 'heresies'
When it comes to energy, we have 2 options: coal + renewables or nuclear + renewables. Anyone who has done any research knows the obvious choice. And new reactors offer the ability to burn existing nuclear "waste". What comes out is about 90% less volume so on-site storage is not a problem. Burying the stuff in a hole in Nevada is about the dumbest thing you can do.
As far as GM crops, I'm still a bit hesitant about Brand's positions. I think I'm less concerned with the tech itself and more concerned with the way Monsanto and other corps are acting. Though in his book, he does point out that there are numerous countries developing their own GM breeds, which puts Monsanto at a disadvantage. I think GM should be 'open-source', allowing companies to experiment with their own breeds.