David Cameron Could Halve The Price Of Electricity

"The Greenest Government Ever"

Will I get a reply?

I'll let you know!

One Visionary is all that's needed - Can this Minister of State be the One?

A Plea by Email to Rt Hon Mr Edward Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Dear Mr Davey,

Are you aware of the international interests and activities, regarding Molten Salt Breeder Reactors (MSBRs)? The extracts below indicate investment and research in China, Japan and the USA are well underway:

--------------------------//--------------------------

China Initiates Thorium MSR Project  Sunday, January 30th, 2011

The People’s Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology, it was announced in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conferenceon Tuesday, January 25. An article in the Wenhui News followed on Wednesday 

Only a few weeks ago, Japanese actions came to the fore:  The researcher, Takashi Kamei, told a thorium conference in Chicago last week [31 May 2012] that Chubu Electric Power Co. has launched a research program..... and that, “This research center includes the use of thorium as a future fuel.”. A later communication stated:     "....concerning thorium molten salt reactors....We announced our plan of stepped-up efforts for nuclear R&D....Subjects of research will include future nuclear energy like thorium rectors. This program will start in 2013. Our main activity will be to support institutions and universities financially. We consider thorium as one of future possible energy resources, but there are many challenges to be solved toward actual utilization. Therefore we  considered basic studies to be very important from a long-term view point and decided to support institutions’ basic study on thorium utilization...."

Flibe Energy, a USA Start-Up Company, has this to say in the final paragraph of their 'Introduction':  We submit for your consideration that the development of a thorium-fueled, liquid-fluoride reactor is a compelling and achievable goal with broad environmental and societal benefits. Flibe Energy has been created to bring this development to reality. 

------------------------------------//----------------------------------

What will emerge in this decade is the possibility of factory produced Small Modular Reactor (SMR) versions of these reactors, capable of being shipped by road, rail and container ship. MSBRs are 'glorified' hot-salt chemical plants, operating at atmospheric pressure; you can run by the design and specification of an MSBR and know it will only be half the price of the equivalent PWRs being considered for our 'New Nuclear'. The UK has the capacity and expertise to manufacture this type of plant in its entirety, whereas with new PWRs, we are left watching from the sidelines.

IMHO, the Government need to invest in this technology, to kick-start interest from the private sector for the building of the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), which is the best configuration of an MSBR, for electricity generation. You are on the right path by deploying a GE Hitachi PRISM reactor, which is a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR), for burning our plutonium stockpile and Professor Paul Howarth is in favour of generating electricity  from the plutonium, instead of burying it. The logical next step is to consider the far safer and more affordable breeder reactor, the LFTR.

To do so, gives us not only energy security, but also emission-free electricity generation to meet our carbon targets in one fell swoop. And, we will see manufacturing growth and prosperity not witnessed in three generations. The APPG on Thorium Energy will certainly be able to contribute towards the debate and I sincerely hope you will be the Minister to open your mind to the enormity of the chance to get our Country to the forefront of LFTR technology and the immensity that this technology holds for peace and prosperity for every individual on the planet.

Regards,

Colin Megson.

Problems, Problems - But LFTR takes care of them all.

This study was covered by about 20 publications and the study's 'answers' (Adaption strategies) were:  "putting new plants near the sea or building more gas fired power plants"

Nuclear, coal power face climate change risk: study

SINGAPORE | Mon Jun 4, 2012 5:54am BST

By David Fogarty

(Reuters) - Warmer water and reduced river flows will cause more power disruptions for nuclear and coal-fired power plants in the United States and Europe in future, scientists say, and lead to a rethink on how best to cool power stations in a hotter world.

In a study published on Monday, a team of European and U.S. scientists focused on projections of rising temperatures and lower river levels in summer and how these impacts would affect power plants dependent on river water for cooling.

The authors predict that coal and nuclear power generating capacity between 2031 and 2060 will decrease by between 4 and 16 percent in the United States and a 6 to 19 percent decline in Europe due to lack of cooling water.

The likelihood of extreme drops in power generation, either complete or almost-total shutdowns, was projected to almost triple.

"This study suggests that our reliance on thermal cooling is something that we're going to have to revisit," co-author Dennis Lettenmaier, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, said in a statement.

Thermoelectric power plants supply more than 90 percent of electricity in the United States and account for 40 percent of the nation's freshwater usage, says the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

In Europe, such plants supply three-quarters of the electricity and account for about half of the freshwater use.

Coal, nuclear and gas plants turn large amounts of water into steam to spin a turbine. They also rely on water at consistent temperatures to cool the turbines and any spike in river water temperatures can affect a plant's operation.

Disruptions to power supplies were already occurring, the authors noted.

------------------------------------------------//--------------------------------------------

I just had to post this comment and managed it on about a dozen of them:

Lftrsuk

4 hours ago (12:48 PM)

Let coal decline - we all want it to. But for nuclear, the answer is so simple - generate our electricity and process heat using high temperature reactors which, if the 'waste' heat can't be put to a useful purpose, can be air cooled. However, high temperature 'waste' heat can be used to desalinate, to produce vast quantities of potable water from brackish groundwater and seawater. It can also be used to implement a hydrogen economy, whereby all liquid fuels can be made carbon neutral, by using atmospheric CO2 in their production. Likewise carbon-neutral ammonia can be made from atmospheric N2 and used as feed stock for fertilisers, to maintain agricultural production to feed 9 billion people. 

There is one outstanding reactor that can do all of this and also is inherently safe - it shuts down according to the laws of physics, even if all safety systems and all electrics are lost. The fuel in the reactor core starts life in the molten state, so no more TMI or Fukushima-Diiachi style meltdowns. It operates at atmospheric pressure, so there is no high powered 'driver' available to expel radiotoxic substances upwards and outwards into the environment. Also, its fuel is thorium - 3½ X more common than uranium and in sufficient abundance to be economically available until the end of time. 

This silver-bullet answer to the most significant problems facing humankind, is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Google: LFTRs to Power the Planet for all of the benefits.

Energy Security for the UK, Free of Emissions: It's Up To You!

This video compresses all the technicalities of LFTRs into the crucial advantages over PWRs and Fast Breeders: Safety - Minimal Waste - Affordability - Ease of Manufacture - Speed of Deployment:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIkqbxYdadg&feature=player_embedded#!

ThoriumPetition.com is for people of the USA, but the UK also has the expertise and manufacturing capacity to produce factory-built LFTRs. We have 2 petitions going for manufacture of LFTRs in the UK, to give us growth in the manufacturing sector and prosperity we have not seen in 3 generations.


Please spend 20 minutes of your time on this video and then vote as quickly as you can for:

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title


and


 http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20095

LCAs - You can't get a cigarette paper between LWRs and Wind Turbines!

Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization

The U.S. Department of Energy enlisted NREL to review and "harmonize" life cycle assessments of electricity generation technologies. Hundreds of assessments have been published, often with considerable variability in results. These variations in approach, while usually legitimate, hamper comparison across studies and pooling of published results.

By harmonizing this data, NREL seeks to reduce the uncertainty around estimates for environmental impacts of renewables and increase the value of the assessments to the policymaking and research communities:     http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lcah.html

Comparison of Harmonization Impacts on Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor Technologies

Assuming consistent performance characteristics, the median LC GHG emissions estimates were nearly identical for PWR and BWR technologies after harmonization. The median life cycle GHG emission estimates for PWR and BWR technology types are 14 and 21 g CO2eq/kWh, respectively, as published, and 12 and 13 g CO2eq/kWh, respectively after harmonization.

Comparison of Harmonization Impacts on Onshore to Offshore Wind Technologies

The median published life cycle GHG emission estimates for onshore and offshore technology types are both 12 g CO2eq/kWh and 11 g CO2eq/kWh after harmonization. This similarity, combined with the tight distribution for both technology types, suggests that the two technology types may not have significantly different life cycle GHG emissions.

Comparison of Harmonization Impacts on Specific Photovoltaic Technologies

The median as-published life cycle GHG emissions estimate for c-Si PV is 57 g CO2eqkWh; the harmonized median is 45 g CO2eq/kWh. Harmonization reduced the IQR from 44-73 g CO2eq/kWh to 39-49 g CO2eq/kWh, a reduction of 62%. Additional analysis comparing mono-Si and multi-Si technologies, and ground-mounted with roof-mounted systems suggest that these system differences are not key factors in lifecycle GHG emissions from c-Si PV.

------------------------------------//------------------------------

You can run by a LFTR design, or for that matter GE Hitachi's PRISM reactor and know that they only involve a fraction of the material content of an LWR of equivalent power - and, by extension, assume that only a fraction of the energy of construction is used.

WIND ENERGY 'WANNA-BE LIEVERS' WHAT'S THE POINT - JUST LEARN TO LOVE NUCLEAR.

It's not asking much, is it? We want the light switch to turn the lights on any time night or day; this includes 3:00 am, when we've got to get up and find the Alka-Seltzer. In other words, living in an industrialised, developed-world country should entitle us to power on tap 24/7. We want the rest of the world to get up to this standard; we don't want to drop down to a standard lower than this.


So getting away from the figures so beloved by the wind industry and supporters, which are always averages, percentages and totals, what amount of electricity actually gets into the grid from this proposed steel rain forest (less the bio-diversity) of turbines and interconnecting grids, pumped storage and OCGT back-up?

From 'A Report by Stuart Young':   ANALYSIS OF UK WIND POWER GENERATION, March 2011

The final two paragraphs of:  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on "average output" figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged.

It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to providen any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirements.

And leading up to these paragraphs:

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 

in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. 

wind farms which are metered by National Grid, 

November 2008 to December 2010 

The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.

1.   “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.” 

2.   “The wind is always blowing somewhere.” 

3.   “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.” 

4.   “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.” 

5.   “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”

This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:

1.   Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and  24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive. 

2.    There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the wind farms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW). 

3.    The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.  

4.    At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand. 

5.    The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

-----------------------------//----------------------------

Well informed speculators, shrewd wind farm operators and industrial opportunists along with the 'wanna-believers' hope that wind turbine deployment will continue to grow and grow. Well they'd better ponder the nature of essential, back-up technologies which will need to be in place in 2 or 3 generations time, when scarce and unaffordable hydrocarbons disappear.

GE Hitachi - PRISM Power Block

It will be breeder reactors.

So be honest - what's the point in subsidising this inconsequential technology? Why spend massive amounts of already taxed income (much of  it from those who can least afford it) on a mass of interconnected wind farms, when breeder reactors can do it all anyway?

IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER - AGAIN!

Yes indeed - I managed to get myself an invite!


-------------------------------//-----------------------------------


I am pleased to invite you to a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy:

Is there a Safer, Brighter Future for Nuclear Power?

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili OBE (University of Surrey, Dept. of Physics,)

  

Prof. Robert Cywinski (University of Huddersfield, Dean of Applied Sciences)
Prof. Robin Grimes (Imperial College London, Dept. of Physics)
DECC Speaker (TBC)

Monday April 23rd - 5.30-7.00pm

Committee Room 6, House of Commons


---------------------------------//--------------------------------


A compelling, but strange atmosphere with the 'Division Bell' sounding off periodically accompanied by a partial evaporation of the attendees.


Professor Al-Khalili was on the button with his presentation, carrying a take-away message of a dire need to present/inform/educate the electorate as to why nuclear energy must represent the best bet of 'curing' our addiction to hydrocarbons. If peace and prosperity are to be maintained as the inevitable scarcity problem unfolds and the population expands to 9 billion, only nuclear power provides the numbers that add up to a centuries-long, or even millenia-long solution.


Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to - please everybody with a finger in the energy supply and distribution pie. Just how tortuous can the thinking of the DECC get? I DON'T UNDERSTAND! Just before I went down for the meeting, the boss of DECC was thinking of installing an underground cable to Iceland - What???


There was striking clarity of thought from Baroness Worthington, in the conduct of the meeting. In the Q & A session, I tried to make a point about the importance of the PRISM reactor, now being considered for burning our stockpile of plutonium, as a potential game-changer for the UK's 'New Nuclear'. I'm afraid it got a bit lost in the rambling nature of my 'contribution'.


My expectations of what might come out of the meeting were tempered by the realisation that, as a first get-together, we (the foot-soldiers) were never going to have the battle-plan for the next decade laid out for us. The generals need some heads-together time for their plan of action, within the Chambers, but I do hope that, in the not too distant future, they have messages and possibly activities to keep the troops motivated.


Just before I left, the Bishop of Hereford asked me if I was the chap who wrote to him to make him aware of LFTR technology and energy from thorium. After pleading guilty, he said that, in taking up the baton, he had asked questions in the House and was instrumental in the creation of the APPG.


I couldn't have been more chuffed - in my amateurish way, I have made a difference.


LET'S HEAR IT FOR 'LFTRs to Power the Planet'