http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title
Have a look at this! Votes coming in thick and fast!
Vote for it now, if you haven't already done so. If you have already voted and you're convinced that LFTR manufacture in the UK can benefit us all, then become a LFTR advocate and convince family, friends and acquaintances to vote with us.
It won't be long now before the 38Degrees machinery gets behind a manufacturing future for the UK!
Showing posts with label LFTR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LFTR. Show all posts
04 November 2011
25 October 2011
Prime Minister David Cameron: Save £50 billion of our Hard Earned Taxes.
One last gasp effort from me: I've just created a Downing Street e-petition which, if we get enough votes, can force a Parliamentary debate to manufacture the first-of-a-kind LFTR in the UK and encourage investment in production-line manufacture of Modular LFTRs.
From the best estimates of costs, we can get £50 billion chopped off the £110 billion Chris Huhne has earmarked for spending on energy efficiency, renewables and CC&S. So, please sign this petition and, if you feel so inclined, please write to the PM to suggest better ways of spending £50 billion than spending it on inconsequential renewables and CC&S.
e-petition: Save £50 billion in taxes of the £110 billion carbon target spend
From the best estimates of costs, we can get £50 billion chopped off the £110 billion Chris Huhne has earmarked for spending on energy efficiency, renewables and CC&S. So, please sign this petition and, if you feel so inclined, please write to the PM to suggest better ways of spending £50 billion than spending it on inconsequential renewables and CC&S.
e-petition: Save £50 billion in taxes of the £110 billion carbon target spend
17 July 2011
Those were the days! Slide-Rules, Tee-Squares and Protractors.
I've made up a 'Handout' from some PowerPoint slides, to distribute at an Institute of Physics (IoP) presentation next week: Fukushima - Lessons Learnt.
It's intended to be printed off as a double-sided A4 sheet, which anyone can do and use it as a handout/cribsheet/whatever. When you open the link, you need to click the blue 'File' tab in the top left-hand corner and scroll down to 'Print'.
50% of what needs to be done was achieved 'in t' gud ode days', when we overworked the pencil sharpeners. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think how quickly and efficiently we could get to the first-of-a-kind LFTR, in these days of computer modelling and planning and CAD/CAM.
https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/11%2007%2014%20Warrington%20Hand%20Out.docx?cid=4cd828679926f5ca&sc=documents&Bsrc=Docmail&Bpub=SDX.Docs
It's intended to be printed off as a double-sided A4 sheet, which anyone can do and use it as a handout/cribsheet/whatever. When you open the link, you need to click the blue 'File' tab in the top left-hand corner and scroll down to 'Print'.
50% of what needs to be done was achieved 'in t' gud ode days', when we overworked the pencil sharpeners. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think how quickly and efficiently we could get to the first-of-a-kind LFTR, in these days of computer modelling and planning and CAD/CAM.
https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/11%2007%2014%20Warrington%20Hand%20Out.docx?cid=4cd828679926f5ca&sc=documents&Bsrc=Docmail&Bpub=SDX.Docs
21 June 2011
Nick Griffin advocates LFTRs to EU Environmental Committee.
Way back on 19 April 2011, with a cerebral perception, removed from the peculiar racist part of his brain and, what seemed, a genuine concern for people with black skin subjected to increasing starvation caused by biofuel production, Nick Griffin promoted LFTRs.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/04/nick-griffin-leaves-climate-change-eurocrats-speechless/
Whilst he dismissed Global Warming he homed in on Peak Oil as the basis for EU consideration of LFTRs.
What a waste of a consumate communicator, to have a mind filled with protecting his nationalism (whatever that is), when he should be using all of that grey matter in the cause of promoting the technology to save all humanity.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/04/nick-griffin-leaves-climate-change-eurocrats-speechless/
Whilst he dismissed Global Warming he homed in on Peak Oil as the basis for EU consideration of LFTRs.
What a waste of a consumate communicator, to have a mind filled with protecting his nationalism (whatever that is), when he should be using all of that grey matter in the cause of promoting the technology to save all humanity.
21 March 2011
Safety of Light Water Reactors (LWRs)
Alvin Weinberg invented and held the patents on Light Water Reactors (LWRs). The UK's new-build nuclear programme is selecting from Areva's EPR or Westinghouse's AP1000, both of which are a version of an LWR known as Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs); these are also the most prevalent civil nuclear reactor currently in use. The Fukushima plants are Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), which are another version of LWRs.
The reactor vessels of LWRs contain pressurised water (wanting to turn to steam, if depressurised) or steam, at about 160 times atmospheric pressure. This is a high energy 'driver' capable of expelling radioactive substances into the atmosphere. Accidental and planned depressurisation played parts in both Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents. The degree of atrophying of the nuclear industry, resulting from TMI, may well be amplified, in coming years, because of Fukushima.
The Enrico Fermi Award, presented to scientists of international standing for their contribution to energy - 1980, Alvin Weinberg.
This is a man who should be listened to; his opinions are important.
Weinberg railed against the use of LWRs for civil use, because of his awareness of their safety-fallibility. As Director of Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), conducting experiments and operations of Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs),he argued vehemently for the use of one such MSR, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure and have no pressure 'driver', or any other form of driver (such as highly reactive chemicals), to expel radioactive substances into the environment. Weinberg went head-to-head with the political and military paymasters of the nuclear programme, in the criticism of LWRs and the promotion of the safety superiority of LFTRs, and for this, he was asked to leave the nuclear industry. His loss to ORNL, meant that his work had a short-lived legacy, withering on the vine until funds were withdrawn in the early 70s.
Until his dying day, Weinberg thought that the Earth's inexhaustible thorium resources would be the future of energy supply for all of humankind.
In his autobiography Weinberg confessed:
“I became obsessed with the idea that humankind’s whole future depended on the breeder. For Society generally to achieve and maintain a standard of living of today’s developed countries depends on the availability of relatively cheap, inexhaustible sources of energy.”
In saying ‘breeder’, he was talking about the transmutation of thorium232 to fissile Uranium233 in a LFTR.
Sunday 30 March 2011, reported in The Telegraph, Chris Huhne said: "Globally, this undoubtedly casts a shadow over the renaissance of the nuclear industry. That is blindingly obvious."
I intend to vociferously lobby Chris Huhne and all members the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change to consider, over and above the views of the Committee's expert witnesses, the views of the inventor of LWRs in respect of their safety and his desire to invest civil society with the ultimate in electricity and heat generation - the LFTR.
The reactor vessels of LWRs contain pressurised water (wanting to turn to steam, if depressurised) or steam, at about 160 times atmospheric pressure. This is a high energy 'driver' capable of expelling radioactive substances into the atmosphere. Accidental and planned depressurisation played parts in both Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents. The degree of atrophying of the nuclear industry, resulting from TMI, may well be amplified, in coming years, because of Fukushima.
The Enrico Fermi Award, presented to scientists of international standing for their contribution to energy - 1980, Alvin Weinberg.
This is a man who should be listened to; his opinions are important.
Weinberg railed against the use of LWRs for civil use, because of his awareness of their safety-fallibility. As Director of Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), conducting experiments and operations of Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs),he argued vehemently for the use of one such MSR, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure and have no pressure 'driver', or any other form of driver (such as highly reactive chemicals), to expel radioactive substances into the environment. Weinberg went head-to-head with the political and military paymasters of the nuclear programme, in the criticism of LWRs and the promotion of the safety superiority of LFTRs, and for this, he was asked to leave the nuclear industry. His loss to ORNL, meant that his work had a short-lived legacy, withering on the vine until funds were withdrawn in the early 70s.
Until his dying day, Weinberg thought that the Earth's inexhaustible thorium resources would be the future of energy supply for all of humankind.
In his autobiography Weinberg confessed:
“I became obsessed with the idea that humankind’s whole future depended on the breeder. For Society generally to achieve and maintain a standard of living of today’s developed countries depends on the availability of relatively cheap, inexhaustible sources of energy.”
In saying ‘breeder’, he was talking about the transmutation of thorium232 to fissile Uranium233 in a LFTR.
Sunday 30 March 2011, reported in The Telegraph, Chris Huhne said: "Globally, this undoubtedly casts a shadow over the renaissance of the nuclear industry. That is blindingly obvious."
I intend to vociferously lobby Chris Huhne and all members the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change to consider, over and above the views of the Committee's expert witnesses, the views of the inventor of LWRs in respect of their safety and his desire to invest civil society with the ultimate in electricity and heat generation - the LFTR.
09 January 2011
Sit at the Feet of the Masters
2 superb and bang-up-to-date articles by Robert Hargraves and Ralph Moir, take you through the history and point to the future prospects for LFTRs.
Please read and digest and forward to as many people as you can: spread the word
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201101/hargraves.cfm
Please read and digest and forward to as many people as you can: spread the word
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201101/hargraves.cfm
09 December 2010
Wanted: A Saviour (Technological not Spiritual).
A Saviour who can start immediately to solve the worst problems facing humankind.
A philanthropic individual or group, who can put up a piffling £300 million to launch the first prototype/pre-production Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), will witness the start of the worldwide adoption of the cheapest, safest and cleanest method of electricity generation of all time. Bill Gates is doing just for the Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR), which is sure to prove inconsequential.
Does anyone have a pathway through to such an individual or group? Give the £300 million to a company like Roll-Royce and within 5 years they would design and develop the first 100 MWe unit. Within 10 years, production units, at £150 million each, could be rolling off production lines at the rate of 1 per day, to replace all of the UK’s fossil fuel burning power stations in 1 to 2 years. Export potential, considering that even the poorest of countries could utilize such technology, would run into the tens of thousands of such units.
Some of the staggering advantages to humankind, our planetary environment and its ecosystems, are demonstrated by comparing methods of generating 1 GWyear of electricity, to supply a city of 1 million people for 1 year:
1. LFTRs require the mining of 200 tonnes of ore to produce the 1 tonne of thorium fuel required. By comparison: Coal – 3,200,000 tonnes has to be burned. The proposed new-build Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) – 800,000 tonnes of ore needs to be mined, to produce 35 tonnes of enriched uranium fuel.
2. LFTRs produce no greenhouse gasses. Coal – 8,500,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses and airborne pollution. PWRs – produce no greenhouse gasses.
3. LFTRs produce 170 kgs of ‘long-lived’ radiotoxic waste, which decays to background radiation levels in 300 years. Coal – 600,000 tonnes of toxic/radioactive fly-ash. PWRs – 35 tonnes of radiotoxic waste, some of which takes hundreds of thousands of years to decay to background radiation levels.
4. The estimated average cost of electricity from LFTR generation is the lowest of any form of generation. This is the average levelised cost, including all costs of construction, financing, fuel and all other operating and decommissioning costs.
5. The land area occupied by LFTR installations is only 2 to 5% of that occupied by coal or PWR power stations.
Some of the worst problems facing humankind can be solved or greatly mitigated by abundant cheap electricity from LFTRs and by the use of the high temperature waste heat from their gas turbines:
6. A hydrogen economy can be created, from which carbon-neutral fuels (from atmospheric carbon dioxide) for all forms of transport can be manufactured.
7. Ammonia can be made from the hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen, as feedstock to maintain adequate levels of nitrate fertilizers for the high levels of food production we enjoy today.
8. Potable water can be produced from the desalination of seawater or brackish groundwater, using waste heat and/or off-peak electricity, during the night.
9. Waste heat can be used for district heating, or industrial process heating, both of which dramatically improve the overall efficiency of an installation.
Other wonderful advantages of LFTRs are:
10. Load-following capability so that, apart from supplying base load, when the kettles are switched on and off during TV adverts, the reactor simply powers up and powers down. Coal-fired and conventional nuclear power stations are for base load supply only and need gas-fired or hydroelectric power station back-up.
11. Intrinsically safe, because the reactor vessel operates at atmospheric pressure and there is no driving force to expel any leaking radioactive material into the environment, such as steam in a PWR, or highly reactive sodium in a Liquid Metal Fast Reactor (LMFR).
12. Needing start-up fissile material, LFTRs can ‘burn’ the existing nuclear ‘waste’ from military and civil reactors and eliminate long term storage of radiotoxic materials.
13. Far more proliferation resistant than reactors using conventional uranium fuels.
14. There is enough thorium to supply the energy needs, at developed-world standards, of everyone on the planet, for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years.
A philanthropic individual or group, who can put up a piffling £300 million to launch the first prototype/pre-production Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), will witness the start of the worldwide adoption of the cheapest, safest and cleanest method of electricity generation of all time. Bill Gates is doing just for the Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR), which is sure to prove inconsequential.
Does anyone have a pathway through to such an individual or group? Give the £300 million to a company like Roll-Royce and within 5 years they would design and develop the first 100 MWe unit. Within 10 years, production units, at £150 million each, could be rolling off production lines at the rate of 1 per day, to replace all of the UK’s fossil fuel burning power stations in 1 to 2 years. Export potential, considering that even the poorest of countries could utilize such technology, would run into the tens of thousands of such units.
Some of the staggering advantages to humankind, our planetary environment and its ecosystems, are demonstrated by comparing methods of generating 1 GWyear of electricity, to supply a city of 1 million people for 1 year:
1. LFTRs require the mining of 200 tonnes of ore to produce the 1 tonne of thorium fuel required. By comparison: Coal – 3,200,000 tonnes has to be burned. The proposed new-build Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) – 800,000 tonnes of ore needs to be mined, to produce 35 tonnes of enriched uranium fuel.
2. LFTRs produce no greenhouse gasses. Coal – 8,500,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses and airborne pollution. PWRs – produce no greenhouse gasses.
3. LFTRs produce 170 kgs of ‘long-lived’ radiotoxic waste, which decays to background radiation levels in 300 years. Coal – 600,000 tonnes of toxic/radioactive fly-ash. PWRs – 35 tonnes of radiotoxic waste, some of which takes hundreds of thousands of years to decay to background radiation levels.
4. The estimated average cost of electricity from LFTR generation is the lowest of any form of generation. This is the average levelised cost, including all costs of construction, financing, fuel and all other operating and decommissioning costs.
5. The land area occupied by LFTR installations is only 2 to 5% of that occupied by coal or PWR power stations.
Some of the worst problems facing humankind can be solved or greatly mitigated by abundant cheap electricity from LFTRs and by the use of the high temperature waste heat from their gas turbines:
6. A hydrogen economy can be created, from which carbon-neutral fuels (from atmospheric carbon dioxide) for all forms of transport can be manufactured.
7. Ammonia can be made from the hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen, as feedstock to maintain adequate levels of nitrate fertilizers for the high levels of food production we enjoy today.
8. Potable water can be produced from the desalination of seawater or brackish groundwater, using waste heat and/or off-peak electricity, during the night.
9. Waste heat can be used for district heating, or industrial process heating, both of which dramatically improve the overall efficiency of an installation.
Other wonderful advantages of LFTRs are:
10. Load-following capability so that, apart from supplying base load, when the kettles are switched on and off during TV adverts, the reactor simply powers up and powers down. Coal-fired and conventional nuclear power stations are for base load supply only and need gas-fired or hydroelectric power station back-up.
11. Intrinsically safe, because the reactor vessel operates at atmospheric pressure and there is no driving force to expel any leaking radioactive material into the environment, such as steam in a PWR, or highly reactive sodium in a Liquid Metal Fast Reactor (LMFR).
12. Needing start-up fissile material, LFTRs can ‘burn’ the existing nuclear ‘waste’ from military and civil reactors and eliminate long term storage of radiotoxic materials.
13. Far more proliferation resistant than reactors using conventional uranium fuels.
14. There is enough thorium to supply the energy needs, at developed-world standards, of everyone on the planet, for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years.
I'm going to try to post this on every appropriate forum I come across and as a comment in any suitable blog posting. We'll see what kind of response is forthcoming!
Archbishop Rowan - Just one of who knows how many insulated leaders?
From his office of Public Affairs, it is thought: "....unlikely that he will choose to seek to make the Church of England support one particular response to the technological challenges surrounding the environmental crisis.".
I accidentally stumbled across my first bit of information about LFTRs and within 24 hours, my feelings were in complete accord with Kirk Sorensen's, when he says, in his 'Google Tech Talks' video: "I really feel like this discovery of thorium and its potential has Earth shattering consequences for us. And that indeed, if we are going to have a sustainable and industrial society on this planet, that it’s going to be dependent on this technology".
It's such a pity the Archbishop is only fed the information other individuals think fit and , sadly, because LFTR articles in the general public media are a bit thin on the ground, it's unlikely he'll ever stumble and fall for LFTRs.
I accidentally stumbled across my first bit of information about LFTRs and within 24 hours, my feelings were in complete accord with Kirk Sorensen's, when he says, in his 'Google Tech Talks' video: "I really feel like this discovery of thorium and its potential has Earth shattering consequences for us. And that indeed, if we are going to have a sustainable and industrial society on this planet, that it’s going to be dependent on this technology".
It's such a pity the Archbishop is only fed the information other individuals think fit and , sadly, because LFTR articles in the general public media are a bit thin on the ground, it's unlikely he'll ever stumble and fall for LFTRs.
09 October 2010
A Virgin Rebirth - Polluter to Environmentalist
I've just posted the 'Comment' below on 'Richard's Blog' to test the 'Carbon Credentials' of the paradox that is Sir Richard Branson. I strongly suspect I will not hear a dickey bird from Sir Richard, but: What's to lose?
Dear Sir Richard,
"The idea should be simple - simple enough for an individual to turn it into reality
I have just emailed a proposal to Virgin Green Fund, regarding the financing of the development of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are capable of delivering clean (emission-free), safe, cheap, electrical energy to everyone on the planet, forever (from inexhaustible thorium fuel). This profusion of clean electricity production will power the creation of a hydrogen economy along with the manufacture of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, for all of our transport energy (including aviation).
I host the only UK Blog on these reactors, 'LFTRs to Power the Planet' (Google: lftrs - and it's about the third down) and I shall be posting my Proposal action and its outcome which, for the sake of UK jobs, growth and prosperity, I hope is successful. I am linked to several USA blogs, where activity on LFTRs is pronounced and if they are the first to take LFTR development by the horns, the UK will be left trailing in their wake.
I have suggested in the proposal to the team, that it is difficult to think of an individual (that is, somebody famous), more fitting than you, who might wear the crown of 'The World's Worst Polluter', but your efforts to try to do something about fossil fuel pollution are more than noteworthy. However, if you were to support LFTR development, it would place you well ahead of Mr. Bill Gates KBE (who's championing of the 'Travelling Wave Reactor' will surely prove inconsequential) in the 'World's Best Environmentalist' competition.
Regards,
I sent the Proposal below to the 'Virgin Greenfund Team' (See them in action on: http://www.virgingreenfund.com/team ); (See the companies signed up on: http://www.virgingreenfund.com/companies/list ):
PROPOSAL TO VIRGIN GREEN FUND, 09 October 2010.
Dear Sirs,
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)
I host the only UK blog, 'LFTRs to Power the Planet' (Google: lftrs and it's about the third down) to promote their 'Sustainable Energy' quality.
LFTRs can supply cheap, safe, clean energy to everyone on the planet forever (See 03 October 2010 posting: 'Oh Ye of Little Faith').
My Business Plan is detailed under the 'Science Apathy' tab, in Paragraph 6 of the posting headed: PHYSICS WORLD NUCLEAR POWER THE ROAD AHEAD.
Mr. Bill Gates KBE has invested in a privately funded research company, Terra Power, to develop a Travelling Wave Reactor. Mr. Gates sees nuclear energy as the way forward, but Sir Richard Branson can do more than his share in this regard, by ensuring the UK development of LFTRs, according to my business plan. I'm sure you gentlemen are aware, with your deep sector knowledge and expertise, that LFTRs perform exactly the same function as Travelling Wave Reactors, but produce their energy from the inexhaustible fuel source, thorium and not from problematic uranium.
While Mr. Gates KBE can be loosely, but personally linked with the detrimental environmental effects of worldwide PC manufacture and use, there is possibly no other business celebrity like Sir Richard Branson, who can be associated, as an individual, with the title 'The World's Worst Polluter'; somebody has to wear the crown! Do you think you could ask Sir Richard if, in the rarified atmosphere of the business circles in which he operates,he knows of anyone else who might challenge for 'The Title'?
I'm sure Sir Richard Branson is more concerned about humankind's future than most of us, and I'm sure he ponders the 'protection value of wealth', when considering the 'Limits of Growth' predictions of Professor Dennis Meadows, showing that by 2050, population will increase by nearly one third, but food production will be half what it is now? Could your 'OUR COMPANIES' page, add a 'Sustainable Energy' category to accomaodate LFTRs, should my application be acceptable? Without being disrespectful, I'm sure you would acknowledge that the contribution LFTRs could make to 'Cooling global warming' would dwarf your other companies' contributions.
In my Blog, I shall be posting my efforts, documenting my proposal, and await with interest, your response.
Regards,
Dear Sir Richard,
"The idea should be simple - simple enough for an individual to turn it into reality
I have just emailed a proposal to Virgin Green Fund, regarding the financing of the development of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are capable of delivering clean (emission-free), safe, cheap, electrical energy to everyone on the planet, forever (from inexhaustible thorium fuel). This profusion of clean electricity production will power the creation of a hydrogen economy along with the manufacture of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, for all of our transport energy (including aviation).
I host the only UK Blog on these reactors, 'LFTRs to Power the Planet' (Google: lftrs - and it's about the third down) and I shall be posting my Proposal action and its outcome which, for the sake of UK jobs, growth and prosperity, I hope is successful. I am linked to several USA blogs, where activity on LFTRs is pronounced and if they are the first to take LFTR development by the horns, the UK will be left trailing in their wake.
I have suggested in the proposal to the team, that it is difficult to think of an individual (that is, somebody famous), more fitting than you, who might wear the crown of 'The World's Worst Polluter', but your efforts to try to do something about fossil fuel pollution are more than noteworthy. However, if you were to support LFTR development, it would place you well ahead of Mr. Bill Gates KBE (who's championing of the 'Travelling Wave Reactor' will surely prove inconsequential) in the 'World's Best Environmentalist' competition.
Regards,
I sent the Proposal below to the 'Virgin Greenfund Team' (See them in action on: http://www.virgingreenfund.com/team ); (See the companies signed up on: http://www.virgingreenfund.com/companies/list ):
PROPOSAL TO VIRGIN GREEN FUND, 09 October 2010.
Dear Sirs,
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)
I host the only UK blog, 'LFTRs to Power the Planet' (Google: lftrs and it's about the third down) to promote their 'Sustainable Energy' quality.
LFTRs can supply cheap, safe, clean energy to everyone on the planet forever (See 03 October 2010 posting: 'Oh Ye of Little Faith').
My Business Plan is detailed under the 'Science Apathy' tab, in Paragraph 6 of the posting headed: PHYSICS WORLD NUCLEAR POWER THE ROAD AHEAD.
Mr. Bill Gates KBE has invested in a privately funded research company, Terra Power, to develop a Travelling Wave Reactor. Mr. Gates sees nuclear energy as the way forward, but Sir Richard Branson can do more than his share in this regard, by ensuring the UK development of LFTRs, according to my business plan. I'm sure you gentlemen are aware, with your deep sector knowledge and expertise, that LFTRs perform exactly the same function as Travelling Wave Reactors, but produce their energy from the inexhaustible fuel source, thorium and not from problematic uranium.
While Mr. Gates KBE can be loosely, but personally linked with the detrimental environmental effects of worldwide PC manufacture and use, there is possibly no other business celebrity like Sir Richard Branson, who can be associated, as an individual, with the title 'The World's Worst Polluter'; somebody has to wear the crown! Do you think you could ask Sir Richard if, in the rarified atmosphere of the business circles in which he operates,he knows of anyone else who might challenge for 'The Title'?
I'm sure Sir Richard Branson is more concerned about humankind's future than most of us, and I'm sure he ponders the 'protection value of wealth', when considering the 'Limits of Growth' predictions of Professor Dennis Meadows, showing that by 2050, population will increase by nearly one third, but food production will be half what it is now? Could your 'OUR COMPANIES' page, add a 'Sustainable Energy' category to accomaodate LFTRs, should my application be acceptable? Without being disrespectful, I'm sure you would acknowledge that the contribution LFTRs could make to 'Cooling global warming' would dwarf your other companies' contributions.
In my Blog, I shall be posting my efforts, documenting my proposal, and await with interest, your response.
Regards,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)