Clinton Crackel, Co-founder and Co-chairman Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition: The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed in Germany in 1925 as means to convert coal into synthetic fuel for use in motorized vehicles. During World War II this process accounted for approximately 9% of the total German production of fuel and 25% for automobiles. In 2012, Princeton University researchers found the United States could eliminate the need for crude oil by substituting it with synthetic fuels (Sullivan, John. "Synthetic fuels could eliminate entire U.S. need for crude oil, create 'new economy'." News at Princeton. N.p., 27 Nov. 2012. Web.). At least we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by substituting it with the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-liquid (CTL) synthetic fuel process in order to create jobs and revive the American coal industry that has been stymied by harsh environmental and political constraints.
Walter Horsting, Principal Business Development International: The worldwide abundance of the element thorium promises widespread energy independence through Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology. With LFTR, a handful of thorium can supply an individual’s lifetime energy needs; a grain silo full could power North America for a year; and known thorium reserves could power advanced society for many thousands of years. LFTR is based on demonstrated technology with sound operational fundamentals proven by 20,000 hours of reactor operation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late 1960′s. LFTR operates at low pressure, is chemically and operationally stable, and passively shuts down without human intervention with a gravity fed drain tanks. LFTR produces safe, sustainable electricity and a range of radioisotopes useful for medical imaging, cancer therapy, industrial applications and space exploration.
Walter Horsting, Principal Business Development International, leading national and international teams into high profile projects integrating communications, energy, and entertainment: Coal and fossil fuels have lifted mankind out of hard labor and poverty but with an increasingly high environmental cost. The truth about nuclear is quite simple. Only nuclear power can lift all the World’s poor out of energy poverty without keeping cities like Delhi and Beijing caked in deadly particulate matter. The Liquid-Fuel Reactor Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). *Aircraft assembly line production, *Can’t melt down, *Can’t blow up, *Walk-away safe, *One-third the cost to build due to its inherent safety of low-pressure design, * Can make fuel from Thorium.
peakoil.com:This is the third of three reports about the claims by representatives and proponents of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is the largest and most expensive science experiment on Earth today. Public outreach for the experimental fusion reactor, under the direction of Laban Coblentz, the head of the ITER communications office, has led journalists and the public to believe that, when completed, the reactor will produce 10 times more power than goes into it. It will do no such thing.
Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, author of The Energy Advocate: Most Americans, 80%, live in urban areas. Most urban areas are not windy. Only Chicago has the name, windy city. Most windy areas are far from cities along wilderness ridge lines, barren plains, out in the ocean. Most of the best wind sites have extreme weather that can regularly damage wind farms. The power from a wind turbine is highly non-linear with wind speed. Wind direction varies. A wind rose graph shows the variability of direction and speed. Compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power, wind energy is not at all practical.
Jerry Paul, nuclear engineer and attorney who served with the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration: Completing the MOX Project is vitally important for America’s nuclear energy industry which has seen plants around the country close prematurely resulting in lost American jobs and a loss of an emission-free electricity supply. As our own nuclear supply chain atrophies, international rivals like China and Russia, surge ahead.
The Wall Street Journal reports that China is going to switch to all electric vehicles in a few decades. This decision sounds good to those who insist that the world convert to electric vehicles, but there are tremendous challenges in the details. Where else in the market place have leaders made decisions like this for whole nations? One example is Roman Emperor Constantine. He switch the Roman Empire from the Roman pagan religion to Christianity overnight. You might be able to do that for ethereal things like religion, but can and should it be done for material things as important as the transportation sector?
MIT Interdisiplinary Study:Abbreviated Study Findings
- Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.
- Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices” in construction and operations are essential.
- Waste. Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain.
- Proliferation. The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario.
We conclude that, over the next 50 years, the best choice to meet these challenges is the open, once-through fuel cycle.
Thomas Cochran has been working with the Natural Resources Defense Council since the 1970s to stop the use of nuclear power, particularly the kind that uses most of the potential energy and produces the lease amount of radioactive waste. This article shows his position in 2006. It would put the world back in the state it was in before there was plentiful nuclear energy. So many saviors would have the world using the least energy dense sources for electric power, transportation, industrial processes, heating and air conditioning. Too many nuclear energy professionals and most nuclear energy organizations are not sufficiently involved in the effort to have the public understand the tremendous benefits and the actual very low risks of nuclear energy. Fear mongering and simple statements sells well with the public.
Van Snyder, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, Mathematician: Popular discussions about nuclear power eventually get around to at least one of five objections: It's not safe; no one knows what to do about waste; it's too expensive; it leads to nuclear weapons proliferation; or there isn't enough uranium. All of these objections are baseless. It is clearly obvious that nuclear power in the form of safe fast-neutron breeder reactors with on-site electrorefining must be a necessary (and economical) part of the American energy economy. Should the United States develop the technology, or buy it from France, Russia, China and India?