An alternative to fossil fuels
By Allen T. Ansevin | December 20, 2013 | Updated: December 22, 2013 10:21pm
An article by Jennifer Dlouhy in the Houston Chronicle, "Oil giant expects fossil fuels have lots of life left" (Page D1, Dec. 13), reports that prognosticators at Exxon Mobil Corp. expect "the bulk of energy needed to fuel the world by 2040" will be supplied by oil and natural gas. From one standpoint, it is reassuring to know the resources of hydrocarbons are sufficient to meet the world's present demand as well as an expected 35 percent increase in the future. However, at a time when global warming is already underway, it is hugely distressing to face the prospect that the world's massive release of carbon dioxide will be continued rather than reversed.
Reportedly, planners in the U.S. Energy Information Administration anticipate the increase in energy use to be greater than 50 percent and expect the world's burning of coal to rise by 2040; renewables are expected to supply as much as 15 percent of the total and nuclear only 7 percent, with the bulk of energy coming from fossil fuels, thus amplifying the factors driving climate change. If we are to avoid the worst effects of global warming, it is apparent that we need a different approach to energy production.
Fortunately, there is an alternative to our current electric energy generation from fossil fuels, one that has the potential to match the massive scale required to operate a modern economy, and with zero carbon dioxide emissions. However, this option has been poorly promoted. This process is the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, LFTR, based on the thorium nuclear fuel cycle. It is a technology that has been tested experimentally and was recommended as preferable to the predominant light water uranium reactors by Alvin Weinberg, the very man who patented the light water design for uranium-based power productiion.
As we all know, the existing uranium reactors have proved problematic, with the possibility of reactor core meltdown being the most catastrophic. Currently, this and other drawbacks of existing nuclear energy plants are a source of high public resistance to this non-hydrocarbon source of energy. Happily, the LFTR design is intrinsically fail-safe.
Furthermore, thorium cannot be used to make a bomb; also, it is claimed that the production of dangerous byproducts is orders of magnitude less than that from uranium-fueled reactors. In fact, thorium reactors can be designed to "burn up" troublesome nuclear waste from existing uranium reactors while producing valuable energy.
Additionally, the thorium fuel cycle is more efficient than the comparable uranium cycle and the quantity of available thorium is greater than that of uranium, rendering LFTR a practical substitute for energy production for an estimated 1,000 years.
Currently in Texas, 80 percent of our electric energy is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels (50 percent of which comes from the high carbon dioxide emitters, coal and lignite); renewable energy is a mere 8.8 percent of the total, and nuclear accounts for only 10.6 percent.
A truly vast reduction in our contribution to climate change would come if all of the coal and lignite power plants and at least half of the natural gas plants were replaced by thorium nuclear plants. Because the LFTR technology appears to be safer than current nuclear plants, is less subject to diversion for military purposes, produces far fewer hazardous byproducts and can be used to destroy existing uranium waste, I suggest that it be promoted as a "green nuclear" alternative.
As I see it, the main thing needed to reverse global warming is the will to harness a new technology for power production.
