LNG

This too shall pass.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Enki »

And prices that rise when local consumption competes with export.

America's economy would be fine if the areas that have jobs didn't have such astronomical rents. The speculation of the subprime mortgage crisis was absolutely devastating.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

anderson wrote:
Azrael wrote:One issue with LNG is that LNG tankers may be excellent terror targets.
Well, for one, those are double-hulled ships - super study.
Second, in the cold liquid form, I don't think there would be an explosion risk. Liquids don't explode. Vapour-air mixtures explode in the presence of a spark, but not liquid. So if some terrorist were able to set off a bomb that would breach the container, it's not like the whole tank would instantly blow up as a giant bomb. Though the gas would pour out and boil pretty quickly, and that cloud of methane gas would then provide a risk of smaller explosions and probably a nasty fire on deck.

Anyway, ColSun/Typhoon has a few more letters after his name in physics than me; he might be able to expand further.
You've already noted the key points:

1/ LNG will not explode on it's own in liquid state.

2/ LNG must go from the liquid to gas state and mix with air [oxygen] before ignition is possible.

LNG Safety: Myths and Legends

What I find more interesting is the complete lack of of any history of attacks by terrorists against energy infrastructure in the ME, the US, or on the high seas.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Azrael »

Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Azrael wrote:One issue with LNG is that LNG tankers may be excellent terror targets.
Well, for one, those are double-hulled ships - super study.
Second, in the cold liquid form, I don't think there would be an explosion risk. Liquids don't explode. Vapour-air mixtures explode in the presence of a spark, but not liquid. So if some terrorist were able to set off a bomb that would breach the container, it's not like the whole tank would instantly blow up as a giant bomb. Though the gas would pour out and boil pretty quickly, and that cloud of methane gas would then provide a risk of smaller explosions and probably a nasty fire on deck.

Anyway, ColSun/Typhoon has a few more letters after his name in physics than me; he might be able to expand further.
You've already noted the key points:

1/ LNG will not explode on it's own in liquid state.

2/ LNG must go from the liquid to gas state and mix with air [oxygen] before ignition is possible.

LNG Safety: Myths and Legends

What I find more interesting is the complete lack of of any history of attacks by terrorists against energy infrastructure in the ME, the US, or on the high seas.
There's a first time for everything.

And suppose the terrorists use two explosive devices: the first for dispersion/gassification, the second to ignite the fuel-air mixture.
cultivate a white rose
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: LNG, no, nuke!

Post by Milo »

A lot of this hype is due to the depletion of conventional hydrocarbons, along with 'improvements' in fracking technology.

However, there is a better way to get our energy, a recent rediscovery of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. I posted about it here.

The rather lengthy, but to me fascinating, video below explains why we should start investing in LFTR now.

EbucAwOT2Sc
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Azrael wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Azrael wrote:One issue with LNG is that LNG tankers may be excellent terror targets.
Well, for one, those are double-hulled ships - super study.
Second, in the cold liquid form, I don't think there would be an explosion risk. Liquids don't explode. Vapour-air mixtures explode in the presence of a spark, but not liquid. So if some terrorist were able to set off a bomb that would breach the container, it's not like the whole tank would instantly blow up as a giant bomb. Though the gas would pour out and boil pretty quickly, and that cloud of methane gas would then provide a risk of smaller explosions and probably a nasty fire on deck.

Anyway, ColSun/Typhoon has a few more letters after his name in physics than me; he might be able to expand further.
You've already noted the key points:

1/ LNG will not explode on it's own in liquid state.

2/ LNG must go from the liquid to gas state and mix with air [oxygen] before ignition is possible.

LNG Safety: Myths and Legends

What I find more interesting is the complete lack of of any history of attacks by terrorists against energy infrastructure in the ME, the US, or on the high seas.
There's a first time for everything.

And suppose the terrorists use two explosive devices: the first for dispersion/gassification, the second to ignite the fuel-air mixture.
Anything is possible. The question I think is whether or not it is probable.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Enki »

Cheaper energy for export only benefits the people selling it and the end consumer. Everyone else in the chain gets fucked.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: LNG

Post by Milo »

Enki wrote:Cheaper energy for export only benefits the people selling it and the end consumer. Everyone else in the chain gets fucked.
And this energy is created through artificial earthquakes, using chemicals that the industry refuses to disclose...

What could possibly go wrong?
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Milo wrote:
Enki wrote:Cheaper energy for export only benefits the people selling it and the end consumer. Everyone else in the chain gets fucked.
And this energy is created through artificial earthquakes, using chemicals that the industry refuses to disclose...

What could possibly go wrong?
Hydraulic fracturing is not an "artificial earthquake".

Fracturing: what chemicals are used?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: LNG

Post by Milo »

Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:
Enki wrote:Cheaper energy for export only benefits the people selling it and the end consumer. Everyone else in the chain gets fucked.
And this energy is created through artificial earthquakes, using chemicals that the industry refuses to disclose...

What could possibly go wrong?
Hydraulic fracturing is not an "artificial earthquake".

Fracturing: what chemicals are used?

The website says "The following is a list of the chemicals used most often", so obviously not exhaustive, in fact, pretty near useless.

OTOH, there's plenty of evidence of potent carcinogens in fracking cocktails. For example, the documentary "Gasland", which I've already cited "to support my claims", demonstrates that repeatedly.

But your eagerness to ignore anything that puts this in a bad light is obvious, so I won't trouble myself to bother with that any longer.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Milo wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:
Enki wrote:Cheaper energy for export only benefits the people selling it and the end consumer. Everyone else in the chain gets fucked.
And this energy is created through artificial earthquakes, using chemicals that the industry refuses to disclose...

What could possibly go wrong?
Hydraulic fracturing is not an "artificial earthquake".

Fracturing: what chemicals are used?

The website says "The following is a list of the chemicals used most often", so obviously not exhaustive, in fact, pretty near useless.

OTOH, there's plenty of evidence of potent carcinogens in fracking cocktails. For example, the documentary "Gasland", which I've already cited "to support my claims", demonstrates that repeatedly.

But your eagerness to ignore anything that puts this in a bad light is obvious, so I won't trouble myself to bother with that any longer.
Ah, the It was in a movie, so it must be true argument.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Enki »

Typhoon never answered the question as to why suddenly after fracking started that family in PA started having fire come out of their faucet. They never had methane in their water before, and then they had it after. Explain the correlation.

Yes, it was in a movie but I also know people who know those people featured in that film. I haven't myself seen the devastation fracturing causes but I have heard firsthand eyewitness accounts from friends who live nearby. We are going to work on organizing a bus trip from Manhattan to the fracturing sites in Pennsylvania so that we can see for ourselves.

I lived around oil fields growing up. For the most part it was just a series of wells dotting the landscape of ranchlands. From what I understand fracturing turns the area into a visible hellscape that one can see with the naked eye.

There is also a lot of reporting that Wyoming's air quality has gone down significantly since the advent of fracking. I am not an expert, but this is one of the claims. What do you have to say to that?

Also, it is risible to say that the water table is safe since fracturing happens beneath it. Methane is chemically lighter than water, so if you release the methane deposits, it's going to rise through the fractures in the shale. Seems kind of obvious to me.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:Typhoon never answered the question as to why suddenly after fracking started that family in PA started having fire come out of their faucet. They never had methane in their water before, and then they had it after. Explain the correlation.

Yes, it was in a movie but I also know people who know those people featured in that film. I haven't myself seen the devastation fracturing causes but I have heard firsthand eyewitness accounts from friends who live nearby. We are going to work on organizing a bus trip from Manhattan to the fracturing sites in Pennsylvania so that we can see for ourselves.

I lived around oil fields growing up. For the most part it was just a series of wells dotting the landscape of ranchlands. From what I understand fracturing turns the area into a visible hellscape that one can see with the naked eye.

There is also a lot of reporting that Wyoming's air quality has gone down significantly since the advent of fracking. I am not an expert, but this is one of the claims. What do you have to say to that?

Also, it is risible to say that the water table is safe since fracturing happens beneath it. Methane is chemically lighter than water, so if you release the methane deposits, it's going to rise through the fractures in the shale. Seems kind of obvious to me.
Debunking Gasland

Debunking Gasland [pdf]
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Enki »

Typhoon wrote:
Enki wrote:Typhoon never answered the question as to why suddenly after fracking started that family in PA started having fire come out of their faucet. They never had methane in their water before, and then they had it after. Explain the correlation.

Yes, it was in a movie but I also know people who know those people featured in that film. I haven't myself seen the devastation fracturing causes but I have heard firsthand eyewitness accounts from friends who live nearby. We are going to work on organizing a bus trip from Manhattan to the fracturing sites in Pennsylvania so that we can see for ourselves.

I lived around oil fields growing up. For the most part it was just a series of wells dotting the landscape of ranchlands. From what I understand fracturing turns the area into a visible hellscape that one can see with the naked eye.

There is also a lot of reporting that Wyoming's air quality has gone down significantly since the advent of fracking. I am not an expert, but this is one of the claims. What do you have to say to that?

Also, it is risible to say that the water table is safe since fracturing happens beneath it. Methane is chemically lighter than water, so if you release the methane deposits, it's going to rise through the fractures in the shale. Seems kind of obvious to me.
Debunking Gasland

Who funds this website?

And again you are addressing the messenger. You don't actually address the actual questions asked. Probably because you don't actually know the answers to the questions.
Last edited by Enki on Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Enki wrote:Typhoon never answered the question as to why suddenly after fracking started that family in PA started having fire come out of their faucet. They never had methane in their water before, and then they had it after. Explain the correlation.

Yes, it was in a movie but I also know people who know those people featured in that film. I haven't myself seen the devastation fracturing causes but I have heard firsthand eyewitness accounts from friends who live nearby. We are going to work on organizing a bus trip from Manhattan to the fracturing sites in Pennsylvania so that we can see for ourselves.

I lived around oil fields growing up. For the most part it was just a series of wells dotting the landscape of ranchlands. From what I understand fracturing turns the area into a visible hellscape that one can see with the naked eye.

There is also a lot of reporting that Wyoming's air quality has gone down significantly since the advent of fracking. I am not an expert, but this is one of the claims. What do you have to say to that?

Also, it is risible to say that the water table is safe since fracturing happens beneath it. Methane is chemically lighter than water, so if you release the methane deposits, it's going to rise through the fractures in the shale. Seems kind of obvious to me.
Debunking Gasland
Who funds this website?
Don't know. Don't care.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Enki »

That's kind of what I thought. You know nothing about this issue and its just your personal hate for environmentalism that drives you.

That's why you don't address any of the pertinent questions.

Having not seen Gasland, I'll go with the anecdotal reports from personal connections I have. I'll go with reports of the family whose water has been poisoned and has to move off of their land. I'll go with their reports of methane in their water supply and the report that it coincided with the incidence of fracking.

Since who funds a website that 'debunks' Gasland is EXTREMELY important to the conversation, I'll just put you in the category of Azari regarding middle-east politics on this issue.

'Don't know and don't care.', seems to sum up your relationship to this topic.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:That's kind of what I thought. You know nothing about this issue and its just your personal hate for environmentalism that drives you.
Oh?

I love science-based environmentalism.

What I'm not a fan of is important economic decisions being made on the basis of hearsay, myth, rumour, fear and ignorance, and environmentalism as extortion.
Enki wrote:That's why you don't address any of the pertinent questions.

Having not seen Gasland, I'll go with the anecdotal reports from personal connections I have. I'll go with reports of the family whose water has been poisoned and has to move off of their land. I'll go with their reports of methane in their water supply and the report that it coincided with the incidence of fracking.
Always bemused and amused how both Mr. P. and you are found of citing anecdote as evidence.
Enki wrote:Since who funds a website that 'debunks' Gasland is EXTREMELY important to the conversation, I'll just put you in the category of Azari regarding middle-east politics on this issue.

'Don't know and don't care.', seems to sum up your relationship to this topic.
As with the US Interstate, it's a good thing that oil was not first discovered in the US recently. An oil boom fueling the development of the US would be nearly impossible today.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Enki »

Ad hominem, doesn't actually address the question.

Tell me how much you love science based environmentalism again, because your logical fallacies demonstrate otherwise.

Lets just stick to the facts. People report their water supply being ruined correlating with fracking operations in their areas. How do you respond to that? Is it 'Don't know, don't care' again?

Are the citizens of Dimock Pennsylvania full of lavender? Is there another explanation?


Anyone who dismisses anecdotes out of hand is not very scientifically rigorous. Just because something hasn't been adequately studied doesn't mean its opposite is true.

So lets get down to it. Tell me about Dimock Pennsylvania.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Enki wrote:Ad hominem, doesn't actually address the question.

Tell me how much you love science based environmentalism again, because your logical fallacies demonstrate otherwise.

Lets just stick to the facts. People report their water supply being ruined correlating with fracking operations in their areas. How do you respond to that? Is it 'Don't know, don't care' again?

Are the citizens of Dimock Pennsylvania full of lavender? Is there another explanation?

Anyone who dismisses anecdotes out of hand is not very scientifically rigorous. Just because something hasn't been adequately studied doesn't mean its opposite is true.

So lets get down to it. Tell me about Dimock Pennsylvania.
Dimock, PA Water Deemed Safe By EPA

Fri May 11, 2012 6:11pm EDT

By Timothy Gardner

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said drinking water is safe to consume in a
small Pennsylvania town that has attracted national attention
after residents complained about hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking, for natural gas.

The EPA has tested water at 61 homes in Dimock,
Pennsylvania, where residents have complained since 2009 of
cloudy, foul-smelling water after Cabot Oil & Gas Corp
drilled for gas nearby.

"This set of sampling did not show levels of contaminants
that would give EPA reason to take further action," Roy Seneca,
a spokesman for the regional EPA office, said about the final
set of data released Friday. The agency released data for only
59 of the homes as they could not contact residents at two of
them.

Dimock became ground zero for the debate about fracking
after Josh Fox, the director of Oscar-nominated 2010 documentary
called "Gasland," visited the town and met residents who feared
their water was contaminated by the drilling.

Techniques including fracking have revolutionized the U.S.
natural gas industry by giving companies access to vast new
reserves that could supply the country's demand for 100 years,
according to the industry.

Environmental and health groups, however, say that some
fracking operations near homes and schools pollute land and
water.

The agency found one well in the last batch of data that
contained methane, a main component of natural gas.

Seneca would not say what the agency thought the source of
that methane was, but said the agency will conduct a review of
the data.

Residents have complained that methane could be from
fracking, but industry groups say methane can occur naturally in
wells in energy-rich areas.

Claire Sandberg, the executive director for Water Defense,
an anti-fracking group, said methane, which was also found in
the previous EPA results, was dangerous to people with heart and
lung problems.

The EPA will re-sample four wells where previous Cabot and
state data showed levels of contaminants, but where EPA's first
round of testing did not find levels that would require action,
Seneca said.

Over the course of the EPA tests that have been released
since mid-March, contaminants were found in some wells. But the
EPA said those levels were safe. In the first set of tests, for
example, six of 11 homes showed concentrations of sodium,
methane, chromium or bacteria. Arsenic was also found at two
homes, but, again, levels were deemed safe.

"Safe levels have not been established for numerous
chemicals that were found in the test samples, although many can
cause serious health ailments," said Sandberg.

Cabot spokesman George Stark said any contaminants found in
the tests "are more likely indicative of naturally occurring
background levels or other unrelated activities."

Another three Dimock homeowners had wanted their water to be
sampled by the EPA but they have not scheduled a time for the
testing.
LI_Oe-jtgdI
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: LNG

Post by Milo »

The vehemence demonstrated in defense of fracking and shale hydrocarbons is baffling to me. It's an industrial process/product; I don't care about its self-esteem.

I also get a sense of rushing the agenda here, that energy companies don't want us thinking about alternatives to fracking for hydrocarbons, such as the nuclear one that I posted above. And I do not want us rushing in to any new processes with the regulators being so subservient to industry these days.

Furthermore, it's better to keep this stuff in the ground as long as possible, in order to get a better price. Higher prices for hydrocarbons are possibly the best guarantor of sustainability too.

At the end of the day I do not see the need to start harvesting this stuff in earnest for quite some time, except on a small and experimental scale, to prove out the process.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: LNG

Post by Typhoon »

Milo wrote:The vehemence demonstrated in defense of fracking and shale hydrocarbons is baffling to me. It's an industrial process/product; I don't care about its self-esteem.
Most of the vehemence I see today is a neo-Luddite reaction to any new technology.
Milo wrote:I also get a sense of rushing the agenda here, that energy companies don't want us thinking about alternatives to fracking for hydrocarbons, such as the nuclear one that I posted above. And I do not want us rushing in to any new processes with the regulators being so subservient to industry these days.
Conspiracy is not the reason for the lack of new nuclear power plant construction but rather fear and, I would say, a lack of confidence to build and run such systems.

The Fukushima Daiichi incident only served to amplify existing fears.

The thorium fuel has it's appeal, however, LFTR are not without their own design challenges.

Even if the US decided on Monday to go with LFTR for power generation, it would still take decades of design and testing before the first large scale LFTR powr plant was built.

To claim othewise is no different than the loonvironmentalists that claim that the US could switch to solar and wind power tomorrow and satify all it's energy demand.

In the mean time the US needa energy.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Azrael »

Typhoon wrote:
Azrael wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
anderson wrote:
Azrael wrote:One issue with LNG is that LNG tankers may be excellent terror targets.
Well, for one, those are double-hulled ships - super study.
Second, in the cold liquid form, I don't think there would be an explosion risk. Liquids don't explode. Vapour-air mixtures explode in the presence of a spark, but not liquid. So if some terrorist were able to set off a bomb that would breach the container, it's not like the whole tank would instantly blow up as a giant bomb. Though the gas would pour out and boil pretty quickly, and that cloud of methane gas would then provide a risk of smaller explosions and probably a nasty fire on deck.

Anyway, ColSun/Typhoon has a few more letters after his name in physics than me; he might be able to expand further.
You've already noted the key points:

1/ LNG will not explode on it's own in liquid state.

2/ LNG must go from the liquid to gas state and mix with air [oxygen] before ignition is possible.

LNG Safety: Myths and Legends

What I find more interesting is the complete lack of of any history of attacks by terrorists against energy infrastructure in the ME, the US, or on the high seas.
There's a first time for everything.

And suppose the terrorists use two explosive devices: the first for dispersion/gassification, the second to ignite the fuel-air mixture.
Anything is possible. The question I think is whether or not it is probable.
Yes, I agree; but we don't know how probable it is and the creativity of terrorists has been underestimated in the past.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Fracking vs. CANDU

Post by monster_gardener »

Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:The vehemence demonstrated in defense of fracking and shale hydrocarbons is baffling to me. It's an industrial process/product; I don't care about its self-esteem.
Most of the vehemence I see today is a neo-Luddite reaction to any new technology.
Milo wrote:I also get a sense of rushing the agenda here, that energy companies don't want us thinking about alternatives to fracking for hydrocarbons, such as the nuclear one that I posted above. And I do not want us rushing in to any new processes with the regulators being so subservient to industry these days.
Conspiracy is not the reason for the lack of new nuclear power plant construction but rather fear and, I would say, a lack of confidence to build and run such systems.

The Fukushima Daiichi incident only served to amplify existing fears.

The thorium fuel has it's appeal, however, LFTR are not without their own design challenges.

Even if the US decided on Monday to go with LFTR for power generation, it would still take decades of design and testing before the first large scale LFTR powr plant was built.

To claim othewise is no different than the loonvironmentalists that claim that the US could switch to solar and wind power tomorrow and satify all it's energy demand.

In the mean time the US needa energy.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Typhoon.

From my investigation of Fracking and the personal experience of friends in the business of both controlling and/or actually disposing fracking wastes, the Fracking Industry here in Uz at least has a VERY BAD corporate environmental culture...... too secretive and.....

"Get' Er Done"
Take the Money and Run....

Instead of just going with LFTR, why not begin with more

Tried and true
AIUI safe Thorium CANDU
nuclear plants...

Except for the inevitably NIMBY...... IMVHO should be

Much faster to get them on line
With a proven design.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Fracking vs. CANDU

Post by Typhoon »

monster_gardener wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:The vehemence demonstrated in defense of fracking and shale hydrocarbons is baffling to me. It's an industrial process/product; I don't care about its self-esteem.
Most of the vehemence I see today is a neo-Luddite reaction to any new technology.
Milo wrote:I also get a sense of rushing the agenda here, that energy companies don't want us thinking about alternatives to fracking for hydrocarbons, such as the nuclear one that I posted above. And I do not want us rushing in to any new processes with the regulators being so subservient to industry these days.
Conspiracy is not the reason for the lack of new nuclear power plant construction but rather fear and, I would say, a lack of confidence to build and run such systems.

The Fukushima Daiichi incident only served to amplify existing fears.

The thorium fuel has it's appeal, however, LFTR are not without their own design challenges.

Even if the US decided on Monday to go with LFTR for power generation, it would still take decades of design and testing before the first large scale LFTR powr plant was built.

To claim othewise is no different than the loonvironmentalists that claim that the US could switch to solar and wind power tomorrow and satify all it's energy demand.

In the mean time the US needa energy.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Typhoon.

From my investigation of Fracking and the personal experience of friends in the business of both controlling and/or actually disposing fracking wastes, the Fracking Industry here in Uz at least has a VERY BAD corporate environmental culture...... too secretive and.....

"Get' Er Done"
Take the Money and Run....
Would not surprise me, however, the industry should be held to account based on reality not fantasy.
monster_gardener wrote:Instead of just going with LFTR, why not begin with more

Tried and true
AIUI safe Thorium CANDU
nuclear plants...

Except for the inevitably NIMBY...... IMVHO should be

Much faster to get them on line
With a proven design.
Can't figure out why the Canadians have not seriously pursued this design, but have left it up to India to implement.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Milo
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:24 am

Re: Fracking vs. CANDU

Post by Milo »

Typhoon wrote:
monster_gardener wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Milo wrote:The vehemence demonstrated in defense of fracking and shale hydrocarbons is baffling to me. It's an industrial process/product; I don't care about its self-esteem.
Most of the vehemence I see today is a neo-Luddite reaction to any new technology.
Milo wrote:I also get a sense of rushing the agenda here, that energy companies don't want us thinking about alternatives to fracking for hydrocarbons, such as the nuclear one that I posted above. And I do not want us rushing in to any new processes with the regulators being so subservient to industry these days.
Conspiracy is not the reason for the lack of new nuclear power plant construction but rather fear and, I would say, a lack of confidence to build and run such systems.

The Fukushima Daiichi incident only served to amplify existing fears.

The thorium fuel has it's appeal, however, LFTR are not without their own design challenges.

Even if the US decided on Monday to go with LFTR for power generation, it would still take decades of design and testing before the first large scale LFTR powr plant was built.

To claim othewise is no different than the loonvironmentalists that claim that the US could switch to solar and wind power tomorrow and satify all it's energy demand.

In the mean time the US needa energy.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Typhoon.

From my investigation of Fracking and the personal experience of friends in the business of both controlling and/or actually disposing fracking wastes, the Fracking Industry here in Uz at least has a VERY BAD corporate environmental culture...... too secretive and.....

"Get' Er Done"
Take the Money and Run....
Would not surprise me, however, the industry should be held to account based on reality not fantasy.
monster_gardener wrote:Instead of just going with LFTR, why not begin with more

Tried and true
AIUI safe Thorium CANDU
nuclear plants...

Except for the inevitably NIMBY...... IMVHO should be

Much faster to get them on line
With a proven design.
Can't figure out why the Canadians have not seriously pursued this design, but have left it up to India to implement.

I took this up on my Thorium thread and am happy to engage over there. I'm no physicist but I'm pretty well read on this subject.
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: LNG

Post by Azrael »

I'm in the thorium club, too.
cultivate a white rose
Post Reply