Thorium Nuclear Reactor

[LadyTevar]

extremetech.com

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins

At a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor — but not in the sense that most people think of when they hear the word thorium. The Norwegians haven’t solved the energy crisis and global warming in one fell swoop — they haven’t created a cold fusion thorium reactor. What they have done, though, which is still very cool, is use thorium instead of uranium in a conventional nuclear reactor. In one fell swoop, thorium fuel, which is safer, less messy to clean up, and not prone to nuclear weapons proliferation, could quench the complaints of nuclear power critics everywhere.

In a conventional nuclear reactor, enriched uranium fuel is converted into plutonium and small amounts of other transuranic compounds. There are ways to recycle plutonium, but for many countries, such as the USA, it is simply a waste product of nuclear power — a waste product that will be dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. While the safety of nuclear power plants is hotly contested, no one is arguing the nastiness of plutonium. Any technological development that could reduce the production of plutonium, or consume our massive stocks of plutonium waste, would be a huge boon for the Earth’s (and humanity’s) continued well-being. (See: Nuclear power is our only hope, or, the greatest environmentalist hypocrisy of all time.)

Enter thorium. Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant (more so than uranium), doesn’t contain enough fissile material (thorium-231) to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. By mixing thorium oxide with 10% plutonium oxide, however, criticality is achieved. This fuel, which is called thorium-MOX (mixed-oxide), can then be formed into rods and used in conventional nuclear reactors. Not only does this mean that we can do away with uranium, which is expensive to enrich, dangerous, and leads to nuclear proliferation, but it also means that we finally have an easy way of recycling plutonium. Furthermore, the thorium-MOX fuel cycle produces no new plutonium; it actually reduces the world’s stock of plutonium. Oh, thorium-MOX makes for safer nuclear reactors, too, due to a higher melting point and thermal conductivity.

Thorium-MOX, in short, is about as exciting as it gets in the nuclear power industry. Before it can be used, though, Thor Energy needs to make sure that the thorium fuel cycle is fully understood. To do this, the company has built a small test reactor in the Norwegian town of Halden, where rods of thorium-MOX provide steam to a nearby paper mill. This reactor will run for five years, after which the fuel will be analyzed to see if it’s ready for commercial reactors. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.)

The first batch of thorium-MOX pellets, which are inside the rods, was made in Germany; the next batch of pelles will be made in Norway; and the final, hopefully commercial-grade pellets will be made by the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory. Westinghouse Electric Company, one of the world’s largest producers of nuclear reactors, is one of Thor Energy’s commercial backers.

(And yes, just in case you were wondering, the element thorium really is named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. And yes, Norse mythology originated from Norway, where Thor Energy is based. Coincidence, I think not!)

[Simon_Jester]

At a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor — but not in the sense that most people think of when they hear the word thorium. The Norwegians haven’t solved the energy crisis and global warming in one fell swoop — they haven’t created a cold fusion thorium reactor. What they have done, though, which is still very cool, is use thorium instead of uranium in a conventional nuclear reactor.

...That IS what I think of when I hear the words "thorium nuclear reactor." I've never even heard of the idea of thorium being used for cold fusion.

I'd be interested to hear what Skimmer and Duchess think of this, among quite a few others.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If it works, India will be as reliant on nuclear energy as France in 30 years, with an equivalent decline in fossil fuel use for power generation and thus CO2 emissions.

[Dass.Kapital]

Not wanting to de-rail or anything, but raising a point made in the above article.

I remember reading some where (Possibly a New Scientist magazine) that the world's actual stock pile of Plutonium was diminished to such a point that using it for long/deep space probes as a power source was in jeopardy? In that, because modern reactors are so good, neat and spiffy they don't make a lot (As in any) plutonium any more?

Heck...if we CAN us plutonium as batteries for deep space craft, why not simply do that? Do useful research AND throw away said plutonium.

Or...are just some 'shapes' types of plutonium left over bits which can't be used to make batteries?

Very much cheers to all.

[energiewende]

The US, not the world. The US withdrew its entire weapons-grade plutonium stockpile under Clinton. All the other recognised nuclear states, and a few other states including Japan, Israel, India, Kazakhstan and North Korea maintain stockpiles. Blasting waste into space is not a good disposal option, since some of the 'disposed' waste will end up spread finely across the stratosphere. RTG only use a very small quantity however.

---

On Thorium reactors as a whole, they seem like malinvestment. They offer a solution to perhaps the least pressing problem of nuclear power - the cost of fuel, which is already less than 10% of the total lifetime cost of a plant - while increasing capital costs, engineering complexity, and required R&D. India could simply roll out conventional LWR or, if they were serious about being a great power, coal. But the country is poorly governed by people who still think autarky is a good idea.

[Eleas]

I was enthusiastic until I read it was from Extremetech. Typically breathless overselling. I wouldn't say the article must be wrong, but I would get a second opinion.

As for its use, the added stability and safety, particularly in regards to nuclear waste, means the reactors can be put closer to population centers. You can build more of them, thus less transmission-related waste and more work opportunities for the inner-city population.

[Irbis]

I remember reading some where (Possibly a New Scientist magazine) that the world's actual stock pile of Plutonium was diminished to such a point that using it for long/deep space probes as a power source was in jeopardy? In that, because modern reactors are so good, neat and spiffy they don't make a lot (As in any) plutonium any more?

If you ever heard of a little period called 'Cold War', both Warsaw Pact and NATO produced plutonium in special reactors like crazy. After 1989, though, Soviet nuclear industry fell apart while Western branch was closed on wave of military budget cuts and post-Chernobyl knee-jerk craze. Still, there are hundreds of tons left in stockpiles, albeit burning at steady rate in MOX fuel (very slowly). And another hundred tons or so in active warheads.

Heck...if we CAN us plutonium as batteries for deep space craft, why not simply do that? Do useful research AND throw away said plutonium.

We do. Post-Chernobyl craze, though, meant howls about "dangers" of the practice and thus, they were mostly replaced by solar, expensive panels in all but biggest of missions.

Or...are just some 'shapes' types of plutonium left over bits which can't be used to make batteries?

Plutonium, unless produced in special reactor, is usually very contaminated with other radioactive isotopes. During Cold War, states actually bothered to reprocess and reclaim it from spent fuel, now, see beginning, all we produce now is in spent fuel we dump into ground.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

On Thorium reactors as a whole, they seem like malinvestment. They offer a solution to perhaps the least pressing problem of nuclear power - the cost of fuel, which is already less than 10% of the total lifetime cost of a plant - while increasing capital costs, engineering complexity, and required R&D. India could simply roll out fission or, if they were serious about being a great power, coal. But the country is poorly governed by people who still think autarky is a good idea.

Autarky is the normal condition of the Sovereign State, and security of energy investment is wisdom in the protection of the state. Likewise the uranium stockpiles of the world are limited regardless of the fact that they are cheap, and therefore for long term investment to be worthwhile the objective is triple available reserves by incorporating thorium. Anyway, you are intentionally obfuscating the fact that the nuclear waste storage and reprocessing isn't covered in the fuel costs in a nuclear plant, and the thorium reactor completes the nuclear cycle, allowing for the maximum efficiency in reprocessing. Energy efficiency is far, far more relevant than costs, and there, the nuclear power cycle is an enormous advantage. The amount of CO2 emissions is trivial and most of them can be electrified since they relate to the mining process.

Here, with the thorium or conventional fast breeder reactor, very hot cycle reactors (like some prototyped in the Soviet Union), thorium Molten Salt reactors, and conventional reactors of the CANDU type, we can have about 3 - 4 nuclear reactor types which systematically use each other's fuel wastes and drop the required fuel per unit of power generated down to about 4% of what it is today.

Your obnoxious statement about coal is obvious trolling, the work of a libertarian who values magical economic growth and magical money over reality. Reality is Autarky and national self-sufficiency; reality is valuing the human condition of endeavour and happiness more than money (as in perhaps the most successful place on the planet, Kerala State in India, which obtains positive human outcomes at trivial investment). Reality is in living the slow life and adapting to the natural rhythm of your ecoregion. Reality is in favouring full employment over a specious chasing of economic growth, and favouring worker happiness over worker productivity. Reality of course is in creating a civilization that will adapt to the natural cycles of history and governing factors of ecological existence on this planet without primitivism -- to a system that values stability instead of growth.

Reality, in short, is integralist, and I now greatly regret getting lured into a thread where I have to interact with something as odious as a libertarian. The simple fact is that we are enemies, and mortal enemies at that, and I really wish Simon wouldn't go around asking for my feedback in these kinds of threads. Nobody wants to hear what I have to say and that's probably for the best. Energiewende: I am pro nuclear power, pro dams, pro canals, pro railroads; anti-truck, mostly anti-plane; a believer in coastwise cabotage and the Carbon Added Tax; a staunch adherent of nuclear power as the most relevant and direct way of giving us the energy to maintain modern civilisation without compromising our obligations to the harmony of the planet, and a profound believer in unions, guilds, and cooperative industry and opponent of willy-nilly economic growth which is founded in nothing real. Proudly a Physiocrat and not at all pleased to have been pushed into interacting with you.

Good day, sir.

[energiewende]

Autarky is the normal condition of the Sovereign State,

Only a few of the craziest states have ever seriously attempted it: Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, North Korea, etc. and it has bitten them severely. I'm really struggling to parse what you mean here. Do you think USA, UK, France, Japan, even mildly crazy and nationalist states like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia are autarkies? Or if not, what non-standard definition of "normal" are you using?

and security of energy investment is wisdom in the protection of the state.

Whereas regulating a competitive power sector out of existence in your country where >20% of children are underweight is not.

Your obnoxious statement about coal is obvious trolling, the work of a libertarian who values magical economic growth and magical money over reality. Reality is Autarky and national self-sufficiency; reality is valuing the human condition of endeavour and happiness more than money (as in perhaps the most successful place on the planet, Kerala State in India, which obtains positive human outcomes at trivial investment).

I'm sure they will be happy to let you move there if you think so (while denying any Keralan who can't program computers to MIT levels the return favour).

Reality, in short, is integralist, and I now greatly regret getting lured into a thread where I have to interact with something as odious as a libertarian. The simple fact is that we are enemies, and mortal enemies at that, and I really wish Simon wouldn't go around asking for my feedback in these kinds of threads. Nobody wants to hear what I have to say and that's probably for the best. Energiewende: I am pro nuclear power, pro dams, pro canals, pro railroads; anti-truck, mostly anti-plane; a believer in coastwise cabotage and the Carbon Added Tax; a staunch adherent of nuclear power as the most relevant and direct way of giving us the energy to maintain modern civilisation without compromising our obligations to the harmony of the planet, and a profound believer in unions, guilds, and cooperative industry and opponent of willy-nilly economic growth which is founded in nothing real. Proudly a Physiocrat and not at all pleased to have been pushed into interacting with you.

Hello, friendly lunatic, I am pleased to meet you too! I disagree with maybe 1/2 of what you've said (and possibly the one that doesn't seem to consist of real words, but I can't say for sure). I support carbon pricing and strongly support nuclear power, and think the best way to get it is to use simple, proven and cheap engineering. You say you don't like economic growth and imply that poverty and happiness are well correlated, yet you also say you support energy-intensive modern civilisation. You also say you support a three-generation discredited economic theory that holds that the only true source of value is agriculture. So, I think you would benefit from buying an undergraduate economics textbook, but once you get straight all your mixed-up ideas, you're not beyond help.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Reality, in short, is integralist, and I now greatly regret getting lured into a thread where I have to interact with something as odious as a libertarian. The simple fact is that we are enemies, and mortal enemies at that, and I really wish Simon wouldn't go around asking for my feedback in these kinds of threads. Nobody wants to hear what I have to say and that's probably for the best.

Eh, for what it's worth, I've always found your posts and what you have to say interesting Duchess. I may or may not agree with you on a particular topic, but I've always been interested in what you and a few other posters, such as Sea Skimmer, have to say when you do weigh in on a topic. Returning to lurking...

[Dave]

mostly anti-plane

I know this is swinging off topic, but could you briefly summarize why? Energy expenditure per ton-mile?

Reality, in short, is integralist, and I now greatly regret getting lured into a thread where I have to interact with something as odious as a libertarian. The simple fact is that we are enemies, and mortal enemies at that, and I really wish Simon wouldn't go around asking for my feedback in these kinds of threads. Nobody wants to hear what I have to say and that's probably for the best.

Eh, for what it's worth, I've always found your posts and what you have to say interesting Duchess. I may or may not agree with you on a particular topic, but I've always been interested in what you and a few other posters, such as Sea Skimmer, have to say when you do weigh in on a topic. Returning to lurking...

I would like to second this statement. I enjoy reading your posts because you seem to know what you're talking about in most technical areas in which you post. While I (like Wing Commander) sometimes disagree with your position or find it too extreme, I can usually rapidly see why you find that position logical.

[energiewende]

That particular one was a contradictory mash-up of incoherent ideas; I'll grant that it's entertaining through sheer insanity.

[Guardsman Bass]

It reminds me of what I used to read back in the Peak Oil Threads circa 2007.

In any case, autarky is a myth for any state that isn't closed on the level of North Korea, and has been for centuries. "Natural rhythm of the ecoregion" reminds me of the concept of the "climax ecosystem", something that ecologists have largely left behind but which lingers on in the popular culture because it was in vogue back in the nascent period of the environmental movement, and because of long-standing myths about how the indigenous population of North America interacted with their environment. And when I hear someone talking about prizing "stability" over growth and worker productivity, what I hear and see is the preservation of one set of economic and political elites against potential challengers and greater enrichment of the population as a whole.

Still, as Wing Commander and Dave said, it's always fascinating to hear different viewpoints.

[Sea Skimmer]

I remember reading some where (Possibly a New Scientist magazine) that the world's actual stock pile of Plutonium was diminished to such a point that using it for long/deep space probes as a power source was in jeopardy?

The issue is nobody is making Pu-238 anymore which has a short useful life and makes huge amounts of decay heat. So much so that when fresh it can actually achieve autoignition and turn into a radioactive flare. This is ideal for use in a RTG to power space probes or secret underwater spy devices like SOSUS. Pu-239 and Pu-240 are what we use in nuclear bombs with a much longer half life, and we have an ample supply of both. The US has been actively destroying some of that stockpile via blending it back into reactor fuel, including many tons bought from Russia. I believe the US surplus of Pu-239 is estimated at a modest 40 tons right now.

In that, because modern reactors are so good, neat and spiffy they don't make a lot (As in any) plutonium any more?

All uranium fueled reactors make multiple isotopes of plutonium, the amount depends on the type and power of the reactor. However most spent nuclear fuel is never reprocessed, and thus the plutonium remains locked inside the spent fuel. The US hasn't reprocessed nuclear fuel for any purpose, even to make nuclear weapons material, since the 1980s. That's why the Pu-238 supply ran out. Russia kept making it somewhat longer, and sold some to the US, but now that source has also dried up and the small amount left is becoming weaker in decay heat by the day.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That particular one was a contradictory mash-up of incoherent ideas; I'll grant that it's entertaining through sheer insanity.

I actually studied economics at a university (as in, that was my designated major, and I was taking courses -- and passed and got B's in them), and concluded that modern economics was actively malicious to civilisation, and that if you extend the Physiocratic ideal to mining as well as farming it functionally accounts for a healthy and stable economy. So don't bother recommending an undergraduate economics textbook to me. I've read them, and I actually OWN A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 by Friedman as well as all the vintage works of the classical economists and of course an extensive reading of the Austrian school. So don't even once think I wrote what I did from an uneducated standpoint. I was a libertarian myself for quite a long time until I realized that to be a libertarian was to more or less descend into the madness of valuing money more than people, and then I gave it up and haven't regretted it since.

I suppose in a nutshell what I was talking about was a feminist and inclusive recasting of Jefferson's America of the Rural Gentry, and I'm certainly not going to be divorced from those beliefs by a message board, so I really should take my leave and concede the thread to whatever you want to say about me: But don't say I'm poorly read or ignorant about what I'm talking about. I just haven't the time to explain my reasoning, and while possibly mad, it is only the madness that makes me incomprehensible, never a lack of studying about the subject, thank you very much.

[Simon_Jester]

Reality, in short, is integralist, and I now greatly regret getting lured into a thread where I have to interact with something as odious as a libertarian. The simple fact is that we are enemies, and mortal enemies at that, and I really wish Simon wouldn't go around asking for my feedback in these kinds of threads...

...I must confess confusion, as to how it is my fault that a random libertarian drone showed up in a thread about prototype thorium reactors.

It reminds me of what I used to read back in the Peak Oil Threads circa 2007.

In any case, autarky is a myth for any state that isn't closed on the level of North Korea, and has been for centuries. "Natural rhythm of the ecoregion" reminds me of the concept of the "climax ecosystem", something that ecologists have largely left behind but which lingers on in the popular culture because it was in vogue back in the nascent period of the environmental movement, and because of long-standing myths about how the indigenous population of North America interacted with their environment. And when I hear someone talking about prizing "stability" over growth and worker productivity, what I hear and see is the preservation of one set of economic and political elites against potential challengers and greater enrichment of the population as a whole.

On the other hand, does anyone with a brain think we're going to be able to get through the 21st century without worrying about sustainability? The economy isn't going to look the same at the other end of the century, one way or the other; if we keep placing all our bets on oil and coal we're bound to lose sooner or later.

So keeping a technological civilization running over the long haul does mean, yes, actually thinking about this. In this case, the "stability" is environmental and technical, and isn't at all conservative because no civilization now on Earth acts in a way that could realistically be sustained for more than 50-100 years.

The problem isn't going away, and people like energiewende are in deep denial about it, because they're accustomed to thinking about economics as this ideal frictionless vacuum where the resources never run out. It runs contrary to that, to make the common sense observation here that yes, technologies which improve the efficiency with which we can use a non-replaceable resource are good. They mean humanity gets to do more stuff before running out of the things it does the stuff with. That's good. This includes thorium reactors.


Duchess may be using different language to talk about it, but I'm sure you've considered some of the same issues, of sustainability and practicality and of what can be done given that there are only so many trillions of joules of potential energy on the Earth to be extracted through chemical and nuclear power plants.

Lord knows I had, long before I'd ever heard of this site, or anyone on it, her included. Likewise, about the core philosophical issue here: which matters more, the arbitrary score we label "money," or the physical living conditions of the people in the society, whether they are content with their lives and able to express themselves?

Since the greatest thing that we've been able to do to make people better off and happy in the past two centuries has been economic development, we often assume that capitalism is the source of all this happiness and good, because capitalism is good at causing development. But perhaps that is not true. Perhaps capitalism is simply best at optimizing some other thing, which under certain conditions is correlated with human happiness and well-being, but under other conditions is not.

Which I think is where Duchess steps off the train of economic orthodoxy, because the free-marketeers reject this idea.

[Guardsman Bass]

On the other hand, does anyone with a brain think we're going to be able to get through the 21st century without worrying about sustainability? The economy isn't going to look the same at the other end of the century, one way or the other; if we keep placing all our bets on oil and coal we're bound to lose sooner or later.

So keeping a technological civilization running over the long haul does mean, yes, actually thinking about this. In this case, the "stability" is environmental and technical, and isn't at all conservative because no civilization now on Earth acts in a way that could realistically be sustained for more than 50-100 years.

Honestly, at that time frame in an environment of rapid technological and social change, speculating what capitalist society will be like in 50-100 years is incredibly difficult. We have no idea as to what their demand for resources will be, due to changes in efficiency and services/goods demanded. I've pointed out in other threads that you could have an extreme services-oriented economy where most of it is relatively low impact on everything but absolute amount of energy used, with growth in digital services making up a good chunk of your economic growth.

It's not that I'm completely dismissive of issues with resource scarcity. But we've proven over the past 250 years that we are really good at finding and utilizing new sources and kinds of natural resources, and pretty good at recycling resources we've used (particularly metals like steel). And I don't think people realize how many alternatives there are for a lot of natural resources that we use (more importantly, possible configurations of resources used), even though they're still more expensive than what we currently use.

The problem isn't going away, and people like energiewende are in deep denial about it, because they're accustomed to thinking about economics as this ideal frictionless vacuum where the resources never run out. It runs contrary to that, to make the common sense observation here that yes, technologies which improve the efficiency with which we can use a non-replaceable resource are good. They mean humanity gets to do more stuff before running out of the things it does the stuff with. That's good. This includes thorium reactors.

Would thorium reactors be entertained as a serious alternative source of nuclear power if it weren't for the stigma surrounding uranium-fueled plants? It's not as though uranium is difficult for a non-stigmatized state to acquire - if land sources fail, you can get it from seawater at a very high price per pound, which isn't too massive a problem because the cost of fuel is only a very small percentage of the cost of the plant.

Since the greatest thing that we've been able to do to make people better off and happy in the past two centuries has been economic development, we often assume that capitalism is the source of all this happiness and good, because capitalism is good at causing development. But perhaps that is not true. Perhaps capitalism is simply best at optimizing some other thing, which under certain conditions is correlated with human happiness and well-being, but under other conditions is not.

I tend to see capitalism as symbiotic with a couple other ideological/social/political developments, all of which have made people much better off and happier with the exception of a few outlier societies (overall, people in richer countries are happier than people in poorer countries). Capitalism played a critical role in driving the adoption and development of new technologies that raised productivity and human welfare, in creating a "churn" that broke down the powers and privileges of older elite segments of societies (although the pace was uneven), and in putting some actual daylight between concentrations of wealth/economic power and concentrations of political power (although it may not seem like it at times). But it does its best in a democratic society with a high degree of social trust, and a willingness to do some redistribution to mitigate the pains of economic dislocation and essentially "buy off" the "losers" of economic and social change.

[TimothyC]

Would thorium reactors be entertained as a serious alternative source of nuclear power if it weren't for the stigma surrounding uranium-fueled plants? It's not as though uranium is difficult for a non-stigmatized state to acquire - if land sources fail, you can get it from seawater at a very high price per pound, which isn't too massive a problem because the cost of fuel is only a very small percentage of the cost of the plant.

Yes. I recall reading texts from the 1970s that talked about the Thorium cycle as a long term solution to limited stockpiles of Uranium. It was also evaluated in a molten salt form for various aviation reactors.

[Irbis]

And I don't think people realize how many alternatives there are for a lot of natural resources that we use (more importantly, possible configurations of resources used), even though they're still more expensive than what we currently use.

You know, example of scarce resource #1, phosphorus. We're running out of it, rather quickly [link]. Why it's important, you might ask? Because of something called green revolution - 2 billion humans depend on plants grown on phosphorus-based fertilizer, and besides, it happens to be essential nutrient in all life, humans included. Phosphorus deficiency is actually serious illness, good luck sustaining growth or replacing that without space mining or genetic engineering on scale so vast we'd be actually rewriting whole ecosystem.

Another example is US farming. Quite a lot of it depends on underground aquifers filled with water on million year timescale - humans are draining them so fast even with switch to modified plants requiring much less water we can see agricultural crash in our lifetime, good luck replacing them or bringing enough extra water from outside without massive state investment program.

[Dass.Kapital]

The issue is nobody is making Pu-238 anymore which has a short useful life and makes huge amounts of decay heat. So much so that when fresh it can actually achieve autoignition and turn into a radioactive flare. This is ideal for use in a RTG to power space probes or secret underwater spy devices like SOSUS. Pu-239 and Pu-240 are what we use in nuclear bombs with a much longer half life, and we have an ample supply of both. The US has been actively destroying some of that stockpile via blending it back into reactor fuel, including many tons bought from Russia. I believe the US surplus of Pu-239 is estimated at a modest 40 tons right now.

All uranium fueled reactors make multiple isotopes of plutonium, the amount depends on the type and power of the reactor. However most spent nuclear fuel is never reprocessed, and thus the plutonium remains locked inside the spent fuel. The US hasn't reprocessed nuclear fuel for any purpose, even to make nuclear weapons material, since the 1980s. That's why the Pu-238 supply ran out. Russia kept making it somewhat longer, and sold some to the US, but now that source has also dried up and the small amount left is becoming weaker in decay heat by the day.

*Bows* Thank you for your reply/information.

Very much cheers to all.

[energiewende]

I actually studied economics at a university (as in, that was my designated major, and I was taking courses -- and passed and got B's in them), and concluded that modern economics was actively malicious to civilisation, and that if you extend the Physiocratic ideal to mining as well as farming it functionally accounts for a healthy and stable economy.

Grade inflation is indeed a terrible thing.

So don't bother recommending an undergraduate economics textbook to me. I've read them, and I actually OWN A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 by Friedman as well as all the vintage works of the classical economists and of course an extensive reading of the Austrian school. So don't even once think I wrote what I did from an uneducated standpoint. I was a libertarian myself for quite a long time until I realized that to be a libertarian was to more or less descend into the madness of valuing money more than people, and then I gave it up and haven't regretted it since.

Libertarianism is a moral philosophy, whereas everything I have said on economics is only representing my understanding of our best scientific knowledge of these matters. Economics generally endorses libertarian conclusions. This is not always true; there is active debate about monetary and fiscal policy for instance, and a number of different opinions on the best practical solutions to externalities. Pure cash transfers, meanwhile, are a moral issue that cannot be fully decided scientifically. I don't necessarily agree with libertarian stances on those issues, but the set of issues on which there is scope for disagreement is heavily constrained by economic science.

But this is an odd criticism anyway, because nothing I originally said even related to grand questions of economics at all, only the simple fact that one can derive all the benefits of nuclear power more cheaply from existing designs than developing a whole new type of reactor using a whole new type of fuel. This calculation is exactly the same whether it is being made by a free market or by a technocratic state. See France for an example of a technocratic state coming to exactly that conclusion!

I think you've educated yourself mostly according to internet debates. The classical economists said a lot that is known to be wrong, while the Austrians are more or less only of historical interest at this point (Hayek is a lasting figure, but then, he broke from most of the others and worked within the mainstream rather than clinging to the Grand Theory for decades). Learning economics by reading these things gives talking points on forums but probably not a good understanding of the subject.

I suppose in a nutshell what I was talking about was a feminist and inclusive recasting of Jefferson's America of the Rural Gentry, and I'm certainly not going to be divorced from those beliefs by a message board, so I really should take my leave and concede the thread to whatever you want to say about me: But don't say I'm poorly read or ignorant about what I'm talking about. I just haven't the time to explain my reasoning, and while possibly mad, it is only the madness that makes me incomprehensible, never a lack of studying about the subject, thank you very much.

I of course have no interest in what you choose to believe. You decided to criticise things that I said, so if you want those criticisms to stand you must justify them. Or, at least, clearly formulate your objection. If you don't care about whether those criticisms stand or not, then there's nothing more to say.

[Irbis]

But this is an odd criticism anyway, because nothing I originally said even related to grand questions of economics at all, only the simple fact that one can derive all the benefits of nuclear power more cheaply from existing designs than developing a whole new type of reactor using a whole new type of fuel. This calculation is exactly the same whether it is being made by a free market or by a technocratic state.

It's "different" in exactly the same way diesel engine using vegetable oil is different to one burning mazut. It works on exactly the same principle with minor modifications. I wonder why private companies are so dumb they developed not just these two, but there are diesel engines modified to dozens of possible fuels? Don't they have economist telling them to stick to cheap existing design?

[energiewende]

But this is an odd criticism anyway, because nothing I originally said even related to grand questions of economics at all, only the simple fact that one can derive all the benefits of nuclear power more cheaply from existing designs than developing a whole new type of reactor using a whole new type of fuel. This calculation is exactly the same whether it is being made by a free market or by a technocratic state.

It's "different" in exactly the same way diesel engine using vegetable oil is different to one burning mazut. It works on exactly the same principle with minor modifications. I wonder why private companies are so dumb they developed not just these two, but there are diesel engines modified to dozens of possible fuels? Don't they have economist telling them to stick to cheap existing design?

In simple terms, because fuel costs are a large proportion of the total lifecycle cost of using a liquid fuel engine to generate power. In contrast, fuel costs are a very small proportion of the total lifecycle cost of using a nuclear reactor to generate power. The R&D costs of a new nuclear power station design are also much higher than those of a new type (or more usually, modification of existing type) of liquid fuel engine. Some of those costs are inherent, some are artificial (political/regulatory).

So with liquid fuel engines you can put up a fairly small amount of money, to potentially save a lot of money with a cheaper fuel. With nuclear reactors, you must put up a lot of money for R&D to potentially save a very small amount of money with cheaper fuel.

If humanity moved to a nuclear economy in a big way the price of uranium would rise, and a multitude of solutions would become interesting both to the market and more competent governments, including novel means of uranium recovery (phosphates, seawater), thorium, and fast breeders.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

(well, the grades ARE kind of irrelevant but I'm a graduate student in an engineering discipline so take from that what you may). At any rate: I regard economics as a cultural decision to be made based on how a culture wants to organise itself collectively, and regard assertions that economics is a science to be the promotion of a particular ideology as fact when it stands against many biological-cultural impulses of the human species. Ah well, someone who might as well be an Old High Tory and someone you like, Energiewende, are very much two ships passing in the night. And well out of signalling range, to boot. I'll leave you to be and stay away from you henceforth. A culture may "pay the price" of having lower growth, but that matters very little if it creates a more psychologically healthy regime for the culture's continued sustenance and existence.

[Guardsman Bass]

You know, example of scarce resource #1, phosphorus. We're running out of it, rather quickly [link]. Why it's important, you might ask? Because of something called green revolution - 2 billion humans depend on plants grown on phosphorus-based fertilizer, and besides, it happens to be essential nutrient in all life, humans included. Phosphorus deficiency is actually serious illness, good luck sustaining growth or replacing that without space mining or genetic engineering on scale so vast we'd be actually rewriting whole ecosystem.

You can recycle phosphorus from human/animal wastes. We just don't do it as much because it's not as cheap, but that could change over time.

Another example is US farming. Quite a lot of it depends on underground aquifers filled with water on million year timescale - humans are draining them so fast even with switch to modified plants requiring much less water we can see agricultural crash in our lifetime, good luck replacing them or bringing enough extra water from outside without massive state investment program.

I don't see why the latter would be difficult. Farmers in the US have a ton of political pull, and the US has both the technical expertise and money to build such pipelines.