Vote for LFTRs, to get it to the front of the '38 Degrees' campaigns. There is no single, more important issue, to prevent the Government wasting £billions of our hard earned taxes on inconsequential ways of meeting our carbon targets. LFTRs is the safest and most economical way of meeting carbon targets and it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in global warming, because carbon targets will impact you - in your pocket.
Whatever we save, by getting the Government to commit, full-bore, to LFTRs, we can spend on other services we believe in. Only our gross negligence will result in us allowing 120 m high wind turbines to decorate pristine landscapes and coastlines. Only dullards would pay the exorbitant cost of trying to squeeze carbon dioxide molecules into places in which physics will not allow them to reside.
38 Degrees is a force to be reckoned with, when it comes to effective campaigning. Please use the following link, to cast up to 10 votes for LFTRs
http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title
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.
14 June 2011
Wind Farm Wars - Best TV for Ages.
It's ended now, but there are some YouTube bits if you search for 'Wind Farm Wars'
I went on to the Blog of Director, Jeremy Gibson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/05/windfarm-wars.shtml#jump_more
it was a revalation to read it had taken 7 years to complete, but if it is repeated please do take the chance to watch it - compelling TV at its best.
I also felt compelled - to try to get the sad story of how thorium-fuelled, thermal breeder reactors were sidelined 40 years ago, when their adoption would have prevented the worst 40 years of planetry pollution and endangerment ever.
I put it to Mr. Gibson, as follows:
I went on to the Blog of Director, Jeremy Gibson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/05/windfarm-wars.shtml#jump_more
it was a revalation to read it had taken 7 years to complete, but if it is repeated please do take the chance to watch it - compelling TV at its best.
I also felt compelled - to try to get the sad story of how thorium-fuelled, thermal breeder reactors were sidelined 40 years ago, when their adoption would have prevented the worst 40 years of planetry pollution and endangerment ever.
I put it to Mr. Gibson, as follows:
Many congratulations, Mr. Gibson; the most compelling TV I've seen in many a year and I saw my first bit in about 1948.
Everybody should know what we're doing without, in paying vast sums for inconsequential renewables, apart from the £1 billion we pay every year in hidden subsidies on our energy bills.
Have a look at this: http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_of_Generating_Electricity.pdf
You should note that nuclear is neck-and-neck with CCGT and if you add a carbon tax or fuel price increase, nuclear is ahead on its own. Onshore wind is money down the drain and offshore wind even moreso.
I Blog on "LFTRs to Power the Planet" at: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/
LFTRs are hundreds of times safer than LWRs and post-Fukushima, the sad, historical side-tracking of a thorium-fuelled, thermal, breeder reactor, which could have nullified the worst 40 years of planetary pollution and endangerment, needs telling - in spades.
It's a tale of powerful politicians and military generals controlling $billions of cold-war funds, in league with scientists with agendas, not having the foresight to switch from reactors which answered the military's problems to the right reactor for civil power production.
Alvin Weinberg, the doyen of Molten Salt Reactor design, operation and experimentation, invented and patented LWRs, of which the Fukushima reactors were the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) version. He railed against the use of LWRs for civil purposes, fearing loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents (Fukushima-style). We, in the thorium-proponent camp know that LFTRs are very capable of coming through such natural disasters, because of their inherent safety characteristics - they are walk-away-safe.
Humanity will owe a debt of gratitude to the first documentary maker who gets this story onto front-line TV.
Everybody should know what we're doing without, in paying vast sums for inconsequential renewables, apart from the £1 billion we pay every year in hidden subsidies on our energy bills.
Have a look at this: http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_of_Generating_Electricity.pdf
You should note that nuclear is neck-and-neck with CCGT and if you add a carbon tax or fuel price increase, nuclear is ahead on its own. Onshore wind is money down the drain and offshore wind even moreso.
I Blog on "LFTRs to Power the Planet" at: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/
LFTRs are hundreds of times safer than LWRs and post-Fukushima, the sad, historical side-tracking of a thorium-fuelled, thermal, breeder reactor, which could have nullified the worst 40 years of planetary pollution and endangerment, needs telling - in spades.
It's a tale of powerful politicians and military generals controlling $billions of cold-war funds, in league with scientists with agendas, not having the foresight to switch from reactors which answered the military's problems to the right reactor for civil power production.
Alvin Weinberg, the doyen of Molten Salt Reactor design, operation and experimentation, invented and patented LWRs, of which the Fukushima reactors were the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) version. He railed against the use of LWRs for civil purposes, fearing loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents (Fukushima-style). We, in the thorium-proponent camp know that LFTRs are very capable of coming through such natural disasters, because of their inherent safety characteristics - they are walk-away-safe.
Humanity will owe a debt of gratitude to the first documentary maker who gets this story onto front-line TV.
04 June 2011
Kirk Sorensen - Inspirational, or what!!
Below is a comment I made to a Guardian article: The Saturday interview: Richard Branson. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/jun/04/richard-branson-war-on-drugs-interview
lftrsuk
lftrsuk
4 June 2011 2:35PM
02 June 2011
Yippee - LFTRs are on the Table for a House of Lords Select Committee Dicussion on the Future of the UK's Nuclear Research.
The link is: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/nuclear/nuclearresearchev.pdf Page 153.
26 May 2011
Email: lftrs@hotmail.co.uk Let me know how you would vote!
Novel method of assessing public opinion on meeting carbon targets.
To chris.huhne.mp@parliament.uk
Dear Mr. Huhne,
I read the article in The Engineer (Low-carbon policy won't drive out manufacturers, says Huhne. 24 May 2011 |
Nuclear: Cheap as chips.
See: Royal Academy of Engineering Study - http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_of_Generating_Electricity.pdf
Nuclear - 2.2 p/kWh
Onshore Wind - 5.3 p/kWh
Offshore Wind - 7.1 p/kWh
Onshore Wind - 5.3 p/kWh
Offshore Wind - 7.1 p/kWh
I've got a good idea Mr. Huhne: Why don't you let manufacturers who support Nuclear pay nuclear prices and those who support Wind pay their preferred Onshore or Offshore prices?
Come to think of it, why don't you let the rest of us do it?
Although a flippant comment, this idea may have some merit, because it is so easy to test. It could well return the best possible quantitive data on the willingness of the electorate to pay for their preferred method of meeting carbon targets. Today, such is the issue of the cost of energy to every individual, that your decisions now may well make you or break you and the Government, by the time of the next election. This information could be of more value to you than a dozen select committee enquiries.
Set up a well publicised website, with the above cost information and a voting window, to allow parties to tick their supply of choice. The most foolproof method I can think of, to prevent voting fraud, will be to allow everyone on the electoral register to vote, with their National Insurance Number being the key to access.
What do you think?
Regards,
Colin Megson.
21 May 2011
Dear Prime Minister
21 May 2011.
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA,
London,
SW1A 2AA,
For the attention of the Rt. Hon. David Cameron.
Dear Prime Minister
“I want us to be the greenest government ever”.
A year ago at the DECC, these were your very words and to do this, you are taking a predictable route of giving everybody in the mix a little bit, but inordinately pouring money into the populist option of renewables. This will divert much needed investment away from the NHS and other essential services.
May I propose ‘Plan B’, to take you into realms of ‘greenness’ about which you can only dream, meet our carbon targets ahead of time, take a huge chunk out of our £14 billion or so energy trade deficit and maximize energy independence.
You will not know of the capacity of this home-based resource, but you will be able to raise a green banner behind which every environmentalist can get. Not one extra square inch of our precious land need be sacrificed in accessing this fuel which can provide all of the UK’s electricity needs for the next 50 years and, it will be free of greenhouse gas emissions.
This resource is the lifeless, environmental abomination of fly-ash, with an average thorium content of 17 parts per million. Mining 60,000 tonnes of fly-ash yields 1 tonne of thorium, which can supply 1 GWyear of electricity; this is enough for all the electrical needs of a city of 1 million people for 1 year. Preposterous as it seems, 3,200,000 tonnes of coal have to be imported (£80 million) to supply the same amount of electricity, which means that the energy from fly-ash thorium yields 50 times more energy than the original coal burned.
You will need to spend a piddling £300 million on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), which can be available in 5 years and factory produced units rolling off production lines in 10 years. Unlike PWRs (the UK’s new-build nuclear), LFTRs have extraordinary intrinsic, passive safety characteristics, making them capable of surviving a Fukushima level incident unscathed.
Extraordinary courage is needed to do something so revolutionary and such thoughts are likely to be kept away from you. However, I do hope your ‘knowledge filterers’ let you have a look at this data, for no other reason than it being an eye-opening ‘thought for the day’.
I must see what Archbishop Rowan has to say.
Yours sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Dear Sir Richard,
You say: "I've made all the money I need to make. I can put that money to good use, and I should."
Would you please take the opportunity to listen to a 50 minutes podcast, in which you will hear Kirk Sorensen say: "It is the possibility of a new age of humanity. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a Thorium Age and it will define a thousand years of human history..... if this thorium age comes about..... energy will become less expensive, it will become more accessible and there will be enough of it to lift the vast majority of humanity out of the grinding poverty they endure today."
A couple of weeks ago, Kirk started up Flibe Energy, which needs funds if it is to get the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) up and running quickly, to kick-start the Thorium Age. Put that money to good use.
You will be doing for LFTRs what Bill Gates is doing for the inconsequential Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR).
The podcast link is: http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/big-picture/2011/05/28/03/kirk-sorensen/thorium-could-be-our-energy-silver-bullet
Kirk is so inspirational, I would urge anyone curious about the prospects for LFTRs to listen to the full interview.