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
Showing posts with label Chris Huhne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Huhne. Show all posts
25 October 2011
18 September 2011
Wind Farms paid to produce no electricity and save half the carbon emissions as previously claimed!
The Weinberg Foundation was launched 08 09 2011, to centralise UK efforts to promote them. BBC's Horizon documentary, presented by Professor Jim Al-Khalili: Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe? talks about their safety attributes.
LFTRs have it all. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors - at last a safe nuclear reactor. You could bury the reactor vessel and primary circuit of a LFTR under the centre spot at Wembley Stadium and be hard pressed to design an accident to expel radiotoxic substances to the endangerment of a capacity crowd. Only gravity acts on the liquid fuel of the reactor core, to drain it down to a safe place in the event of an accident. It would take a direct hit by an asteroid or bunker-buster to blast stuff upwards and out into the environment.
Half a dozen UK companies have the expertise and capacity to be part of the supply chain to manufacture these (glorified) atmospheric-pressure, hot-salt, chemical plants. Vote for 'UK Manufacture of LFTRs' on 38Degrees, the Campaigning Website (Baroness Bryony Worthington has just voted).
Do the sums and LFTR deployment would chop £50 billion off the £110 billion Chris Huhne is committing to meet carbon targets, with his crazy mix of renewables schemes. Has anybody got any ideas about putting the odd £50 billion to better use?
LFTRs have it all. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors - at last a safe nuclear reactor. You could bury the reactor vessel and primary circuit of a LFTR under the centre spot at Wembley Stadium and be hard pressed to design an accident to expel radiotoxic substances to the endangerment of a capacity crowd. Only gravity acts on the liquid fuel of the reactor core, to drain it down to a safe place in the event of an accident. It would take a direct hit by an asteroid or bunker-buster to blast stuff upwards and out into the environment.
Half a dozen UK companies have the expertise and capacity to be part of the supply chain to manufacture these (glorified) atmospheric-pressure, hot-salt, chemical plants. Vote for 'UK Manufacture of LFTRs' on 38Degrees, the Campaigning Website (Baroness Bryony Worthington has just voted).
Do the sums and LFTR deployment would chop £50 billion off the £110 billion Chris Huhne is committing to meet carbon targets, with his crazy mix of renewables schemes. Has anybody got any ideas about putting the odd £50 billion to better use?
16 July 2011
NNL's Professor Paul Howarth RULES!! OK!!
Please! Please! Please! - Professor Howarth, listen to Kirk Sorensen's evidence of the past successes of thorium fuelled Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and what the future holds for LFTRs. At the end of the summer, you can then present a balanced report to Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; this will rectify the omission of a mention of the use of the Thorium Fuel Cycle in MSRs, in your Position Paper of August 2010, of that name.
I do hope I shall get an early response to my letter, posted to you today, 16 July 2011, asking if you are willing and able to invite Kirk Sorensen to make the case, to you and your NNL staff, that any country with decent scientific, technological and economical resources can 'make LFTRs happen' - this means the UK.
In all probability, you and only you will influence politics to take the path of increased UK manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity not seen in 3 generations, versus a bit-part in the future of nuclear power across the globe.
I do hope I shall get an early response to my letter, posted to you today, 16 July 2011, asking if you are willing and able to invite Kirk Sorensen to make the case, to you and your NNL staff, that any country with decent scientific, technological and economical resources can 'make LFTRs happen' - this means the UK.
In all probability, you and only you will influence politics to take the path of increased UK manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity not seen in 3 generations, versus a bit-part in the future of nuclear power across the globe.
13 July 2011
Keep It Simple Stupid and Save £50 Billion!
Have you ever seen such a mish-mash, hodge-podge of a dog's-dinner than: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/emr_oral/emr_oral.aspx
Electricity Market Reform - Oral statement by Chris Huhne
How could we have ended up with such a woolly-minded believer in Renewables, driving through an energy policy, which might hold sway for decades, and cost an unnecessary extra £50 billion into the 'bargain'. And, most confidently, "commend this statement to the House".
Mr Huhne - Let's hope that the late-summer report by the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) will point out that: The first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) could be up and running in 5 years, at the piddling cost of £300 million. There are half a dozen UK companies that could manufacture this (glorified) hot-salt chemical plant, so 5 years after that, 100 MWe modular LFTRs could be rolling off production lines at one per day, for £150 million each. In 2 years, we could replace all of our coal and gas fired power stations (LFTRs are load-following), at a cost of £30 billion per year for 2 years.
Do the sums and you will see 'keeping it simple' will save you £50 billion of the £110 billion investment you quantified in the Commons. A few pats-on-the-back from colleagues and a few 'eyes to the heavens' and 'thank-goodnesses' from tax payers everywhere.
Drumming Up Votes for LFTRs on 38 Degrees.
I'm on 'Google Alerts' for things Nuclear, which comes up with many opportunities to add comments to on-line articles about varied nuclear subjects. Below is a copy of one of my responses to such an article and my hope is that anyone reading this might be disposed to respond in a similar manner to any article on which they might comment. Please help where you can to get votes on 38 degrees for LFTRs - would you all please ask your friends on facebook if they would care to vote also?
----------------------//----------------------
The first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) could be up and running in 5 years, at the piddling cost of £300 million. There are half a dozen UK companies that could manufacture this (glorified) hot-salt chemical plant, so 5 years after that, 100 MWe modular LFTRs could be rolling off production lines at one per day, for £150 million each. In 2 years, we could replace all of our coal and gas fired power stations (LFTRs are load-following), at a cost of £30 billion per year for 2 years - saving £50 billion from the £110 billion Chris Huhne just announced in the Commons.
38 degrees is a Campaigning Organisation which can lobby parliament on behalf of important causes and your vote for LFTRs is needed. LFTR manufacture would create manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity not seen in 3 generations. See: http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title
----------------------//----------------------
The first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) could be up and running in 5 years, at the piddling cost of £300 million. There are half a dozen UK companies that could manufacture this (glorified) hot-salt chemical plant, so 5 years after that, 100 MWe modular LFTRs could be rolling off production lines at one per day, for £150 million each. In 2 years, we could replace all of our coal and gas fired power stations (LFTRs are load-following), at a cost of £30 billion per year for 2 years - saving £50 billion from the £110 billion Chris Huhne just announced in the Commons.
38 degrees is a Campaigning Organisation which can lobby parliament on behalf of important causes and your vote for LFTRs is needed. LFTR manufacture would create manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity not seen in 3 generations. See: http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title
21 March 2011
Help! I need Somebody, Help!
The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change Mr Tim Yeo MP (Chair) Dan Byles MP Barry Gardiner MP Ian Lavery MP Dr Philip Lee MP Albert Owen MP Christopher Pincher MP John Robertson MP Laura Sandys MP Sir Robert Smith MP Dr Alan Whitehead MP | (Con) (Con) (Lab) (Lab) (Con) (Lab) (Con) (Lab) (Con) (LD) (Lab) |
|---|
We picked the side and Manager Chris Huhne and they hold the future of the UK's Nuclear Industry in their hands and control the spend of £billions of hard-earned taxpayers' money.
They could spend the piddling £300 million, to get the first-of-a-kind LFTR up and running in 5 years and subsidies UK manufacturing, to get the first-off production lines units available in 10 years. Then we substitute emission-free, load-following LFTRs for our coal burning and natural gas power stations - Voila! in 15 years we could be on a fast-track to meeting our carbon targets at a massively lower cost than any other method.
OR
They could literally pour OUR money down the drain in subsidies for CC&S and Wind and Solar Renewables. Surely, in everybody's heart-of-hearts, they must know that believing these technologies can provide 100% of our future energy needs, 100% of the time, is just wishful thinking. And, at what price ecological destruction and greenhouse gas emissions?
Taxpaying voters, I need you - email every one of these Select Committee Members ( http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ ) to demand they invite Kirk Sorensen over to present the LFTR case to them and their Nuclear Advisers. If you don't get a positive response, email your own MP and get them to lobby the Committee Members to positively move on a LFTRs study.
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.
18 March 2011
It's Now or Never!
The text of Kirk Sorensen's interview for ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3168019.htm?section=world) shows how he was allowed to make the case for LFTRs being several orders of magnitude safer than the the vast majority world's current LWR fleet.
 |
| Can we ever guarantee to second-guess nature? |
The history case, linking to Alvin Weinberg, the inventor of the LWR, is mighty pursuasive in terms of presenting the information to the public at large. However, LFTR advocates need to be at the politicians and their expert advisers, who we know will have their backs to the wall, defending decades of pouring money into a safety-fallable, uranium-fuelled nuclear industry.
I've already emailed Chris Huhne, with the link to this article, suggesting he'd better move quickly on LFTRs, if he wants to stand a chance of meeting our carbon targets. He needs to bear in mind what the gathering storm, from the massed ranks of the viscerally driven anti-nukes will do to his new-build nuclear programme.
I now plan to email him with a 'formal' request (if there is such a thing within the machinery of the studies his department carry out) for a study to be conducted on prototyping the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) LFTRs (to pre-production status). A further study, on production line manufacture of (say) 100 MWe units capable of being transported on a flat-bed truck, is also needed.
Anybody in the UK who reads this and is so inclined, I hope you will bang-on to your MP, to urge Chris Huhne to get LFTRs onto his energy agenda, with utmost urgency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sunday 18 September 2011
Along with this linked Headline and observation:
Promoters overstated the environmental benefit of wind farms
The wind farm industry has been forced to admit that the environmental benefit of wind power in reducing carbon emissions is only half as big as it originally claimed.