This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Evolution of America's Energy Supply (1776 – 2014)
Some context for those who insist renewables will 'solve' everything...
The early settlers to North America relied on organic materials on the surface of land for the vast majority of their energy needs. Wood, brush, and other biomass fuels were burned to warm homes, and eventually to power steam engines. Small amounts of coal were found in riverbeds and other such outcrops, but only local homes in the vicinity of these deposits were able to take advantage of it for household warmth.
During the Industrial Revolution, it was the invention of the first coal-powered, commercially practical locomotives that turned the tide. Although wood would still be used in the majority of locomotives until 1870, the transition to fossil fuels had begun.
Coke, a product of heating certain types of coal, replaced wood charcoal as the fuel for iron blast furnaces in 1875. Thomas Edison built the first practical coal-fired electric generating station in 1882, which supplied electricity to some residents in New York City. It was just after this time in the 1910s that the United States would be the largest coal producer in the world with 750,000 miners and blasting 550 million tons of coal a year.
The invention of the internal combustion engine and the development of new electrical technologies, including those developed by people like Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, were the first steps towards today’s modern power landscape. Fuels such as petroleum and natural gas became very useful, and the first mass-scale hydroelectric stations were built such as Hoover Dam, which opened in 1936.
The discovery and advancement of nuclear technology led to the first nuclear submarine in 1954, and the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States in Pennsylvania in 1957. In a relatively short period of time, nuclear would have a profound effect on energy supply, and it today 99 nuclear reactors account for 20% of all electricity generated in the United States.
In more recent decades, scientists found that the current energy mix is not ideal from an environmental perspective. Advancements in renewable energy solutions such as solar, wind, and geothermal were made, helping set up a potential energy revolution. Battery technology, a key challenge for many years, has began to catch up to allow us to store larger amounts of energy when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Companies like Tesla are spending billions of dollars on battery megafactories that will have a great impact on our energy use.
Today, the United States gets the majority of its energy from fossil fuels, though that percentage is slowly decreasing. While oil is still the primary fuel of choice for transportation, it now only generates 1% of the country’s electricity through power plants. Natural gas has also taken on a bigger role over time, because it is perceived as being cleaner than oil and coal.
Today, in 2015, wind and solar power have generated 5% and 1% of total electricity respectively. Hydro generates 7%.
- 44430 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



A stealth ad for Telsa?
Another subsidized government combine.
Tesla products are powered by fossil fuels, nuclear, and dams, mostly. Oh, and government debt.
Alternate energy may not, but alternate thinking will change things...fundamentally...
Fundus (asshole) to Mental (Mind)...bottom to top...
Thorough-going change is upon us...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjmWeypvoQg
Energy will still be required to cultivate, process, and distribute all the drugs your plan requires.
If you are talking to me, great that you grokked my plan.
I'm sure it looks NOTHING like you've imagined ;-)
I mostly just drink scotch, so probably not. Too much modern physics coursework back in college.
What a tragedy for us that we invented a physics full of limits in an un-limited universe....
You missed Cosmos back when Sagan did it, I guess. Ever plugged in some values to E=mc2 ? It helps the imagination sometimes to actually, you know, do the math.
Eh z Eh qeull to what?
You are telling me to believe in the carefully crafted masonic lie of modern physics?
Relativistic Physics? That monumental lie sold by the monumental plagiarist, All But Us Ein-stain?
Who was merely codifying nihilist nietschzewhatthefuckever's death philosophy in fantasy maths.
Gravity is the curvature of space time....
Heh....
Don't try to be superior on borrowed shoulders...
Math is hard, when the math involves solving the Shroedinger equation. But it is worth it. Insights from doing that math gave us the transistor, LEDs, lasers, and chemistry writ large. You know those electronic structure numbers they list for the building blocks of matter? Those come from solving that equation. Which is hard math. E=mc2, which is not derived from quantum physics but is entirely compatible with it, was merely hard to derive. Plugging the numbers is EASY. The result of doing so is staggering.
Within a few years of Einstein's theory, Tesla's tower, on Long Island, was shut down, dismantled by the gov. and it's plans taken away. The real Tesla had created wireless power transmission(man-made lightning) and that would have hampered the monopolists' plan. Also, during this same time, most utilities had state by state laws implemented to give them their monopolies, most of which are still in force. This is why the battery argument is all smoke and mirrors. Like they say, electric cars are the technology of the future and always will be! Nothing to see here slaves.
Why didn't Hitler exploit this technology?
It's in the super dooper secret warehouse where they store the 100mpg carburetor.
That warehouse in the Indiana Jones movie?
That's on a need to know basis, not for your eyes quisling!
I've said too much already! *cracks cyanide tablet*
If Detroit would ever take that magic carburetor (invented by a high school student in Witchita) out of that safe they put it in back in 1939, cars would run on thimblesful of gas.
Pointless article, but it seems to have stirred up the same useless comments anything energy related does here.
Pointless article, pointless replies. Nothing surprising about that.
The chart above defeats the byline. All of the energy sources started at zero and worked their way up to dominance.
but there is a huge difference in the opening angle / rate of adoption between fossil fuels and all the rest
There is also a HUGE difference in the cost of production/distribution of fuels as well as their power potential per dollar. I'd love solar, et al, to be reasonably priced to the point where I can have it generate and store 100KWH (driving, heating/cooling, etc.) for the price of oil but it won't in my lifetime.
Solar? That's like wishing upon a star.
For 1/10th the cost of solar, you could insulate your house. They payback would be immediate. The solar won't pay back in your lifetime unless you live where the sun always shines.
But then wall street can't rip off billions on something non sexy like insulation. They have to market fraudulent companies like tesla and bribe politicians to pay for it.
Vested interests! Newsflash, folks, it ain't been a free market since John D. took 90% control of oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
US nuclear was stopped by the Rockefeller family's stooge, Carter. Hydro was also shutdown by the 'environmentalists'(useful idiots). Money doesn't grow on trees, someone funds them.
exactly! corn ethanol is just in it's infancy...as soon as we plant 47 billion trillion more acres of corn, this is all going to be a mute point! problem.......SOLVED!!
Cool idea, let's use fuel (oil-based fertilizer) to grow corn, which we can then turn back into fuel.
it is the dumbest fucking alternative energy plan we've ever hatched
Taxpayer debt.
Great article though
Surprising, at first,the share that wood still holds
Gov. debt= lower future living standards.
The FED's got it all figured out.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/measuringtheeconomystudent-111016080612-p...
TBT
You forget the Virtual, Wishful Thinking derived "Carbon Credits"...
...the only thing keeping it in the "Acct Rules Black"
Agreed.
I felt as if I was sitting next to a comfortable investor in TSLA who was espousing to me the inevitiability of a future powered by TSLA. Naturally, using the "let me paint you a picture" technique to reimagine the past centuries of energy source romantically. Spending billions on megastructures? Those are ticker terms--i"ve got to do this or I'll be laughed at...
Let's put solar panels on every house and an electric car in every garage and see what's what.
You first
yes, him first...electric cars may be an important part of our future. But they are going to need to consume MUCH less energy than a tesla. Which means they will need to be much smaller, lighter, and slower. Making a tesla, and making it the fastest car on the road was completely counter to the true vision of conservation.
Exactly...
Thus...this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjmWeypvoQg
How about we make energy really cheap instead and enjoy badass products and kickass experiences rather than balling up in our hairshirt depression? Ludicrous mode for the people!
Just waiting on the approval for my solar panel subsidy.
Thanks, BTW.
Already have the plug in hybrid.
Do you drink mineral water and walk uh, a little light in you sandals too? Get a real car hippy!
You people are all relics. I drive a bike and it gets me everywhere i need to go. The world is shit because people feel the need to burn 1000 trees to go play minigolf in the next town over, or because they prefer to spend 5$ every day being stuck in traffic rather than ditch their oversized, mortgaged suburban home...
And to be clear, in six months i'm moving off grid! Enjoy your FOSSEHL FUHEHLS!
derogatory
informalgoody-goody
Ad Hominem: Attacking the man, not the message.
Sure, he's a sanctimonious dick. That doesn't mean that most people in the cities can't fucking ride bikes. I mean, look at those fat assholes, and look at the vehicle traffic. Riding a bike all of 10 blocks to their final destination wouldn't hurt them at all.
You should be dictator for life and could use your power and authority to mandate such a scheme.
Utopia!
That's pretty much the plan. It can't be any worse than letting idiots vote.
You say subsidy, I say leach
The electric car didn't make any sense 100 years ago. It certainly doesn't make any more sense today.
Actually the electric car did make sense 100 years ago even with the technology that existed then. But technology hasn't advanced in the last 100 years, right?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6184265
And lol at your statement.
I'm driving an electric car. It isn't a Tesla. Am I going to believe you or my lying eyes?
As for the history, get your self educated.
"Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives"
http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alter...
Concrapulations deluded ignoramus.
I'll just let your comment speak for itself.
LOL.
Anyone buying an electric car today is just purchasing a status symbol, or making a very daft political statement. You are saying, hey look at me -- I have more money than brains and I want everyone to look at me.
If you really cared about the planet you would spend a tiny fraction of the money to insulate your house. Your utility bills would go down enough to pay it off very quickly. If everyone did this, most power plants could be shut down. But people won't do this because they'd rather have another piece of bling than actually make economic sense.
BTW. Your paper was written by an engineer employed by Exxon.
LOL right back @ you.
Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles? Stephen P. Holland, Erin T. Mansur, Nicholas Z. Muller, Andrew J. YatesNBER Working Paper No. 21291
Issued in June 2015
NBER Program(s): EEE
Electric vehicles offer the promise of reduced environmental externalities relative to their gasoline counterparts. We combine a theoretical discrete-choice model of new vehicle purchases, an econometric analysis of the marginal emissions from electricity, and the AP2 air pollution model to estimate the environmental benefit of electric vehicles. First, we find considerable variation in the environmental benefit, implying a range of second-best electric vehicle purchase subsidies from $3025 in California to -$4773 in North Dakota, with a mean of -$742. Second, over ninety percent of local environmental externalities from driving an electric vehicle in one state are exported to others, implying that electric vehicles may be subsidized locally, even though they may lead to negative environmental benefits overall. Third, geographically differentiated subsidies can reduce deadweight loss, but only modestly. Fourth, the current federal purchase subsidy of $7500 has greater deadweight loss than a no-subsidy policy.
Are the authors of this paper employed by Exxon as well?
Let me bottom line it for you. Electric cars are now here to stay. They are being purchased and driven. The consumers I know are very happy. Happy to be kicking Exxon's ass.
Pollution from these vehicles is now the sole problem of the manufacturers, and not mine as I emit no pollution. I'm confident they'll get it under control.
As for the subsidies, they are plenty of subsidies in the "energy" business. I voted for mine and thanks for your contribution BTW.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed
And no pollution from the plant producing the charge, and the production of lithium and all other dedicated production required for electric cars. Deluded indeed.
Anyone who's worked on car engines knows that the internal parts have changed very little over the last 100+ years. For a reason! To burn more oil. The 1990 Geo Metro got better mileage than the over engineered hybrids today. That's why Geo's were regulated off the market by DC.
An engineer we worked with got one of those and early on we'd slip an extra gallon or so of gas in it when he wasn't around. He Swore that thing got over 100 mpg, then he though it had gotten screwed up somehow when we stopped...
You are a riot. You should have your own reality TV show. I would tune in
On a purely relative efficiency basis I disagree
Antifaschistische, electric cars are part of the now. Many manufacturers have introduced models this year. Telsa's high end car is an anomaly. Consumers are finally getting a choice they wanted. Electric cars are here and there is no going back.
Electric cars are slow? Did you know there are electric dragsters?
Wake me when the energy density of batteries equals or exceeds that of gasoline.
And you can fill/charge it in 10 minutes, and they have a thin film collector blanket I can charge it with when out in the sticks. Oh, and speaking of sticks, it has to be able to tow a horse trailer or carry a ton of stuff.
Anti,
Don't discount that may have been the plan all along. How better a way to counter, than rich people buy a "zero emission" vehicle to mitigate the animosity and at same time relish enjoying driving a hot rod.
Worked for Carter..oh wait
UUUhhhh......has anybody notices how the entire energy complex has plataued. And how all but renewables has either peaked or is in decline.
How can we have "Eternal Growth" when our extraction of cheap energy has either plataued or peaked ?
This is a true Hydrogen Conversion System which eliminates using Gasoline entirely.
Hydrogen is safely stored in a high capacity solid (Metal Hydride) material which cannot explode or burn in the event of a crash.
The Hydrogen is chemically locked in this material and is not stored as a dangerously flammable gas or a liquid as other experimental Hydrogen conversions do.
Range is in the area of 300 to 400 miles…
http://www.degaray.com/?p=5228
"The Hydrogen Generator (about the size of a dishwasher) is installed in the garage and is powered by a solar array on the roof, or a wind turbine to provide power to produce Hydrogen gas from water at near zero cost." When I read that the bullcrap alarm went off. How do you install a wind turbine or solar array at 'zero' cost? They would also require maintenance and replacement which also costs. When the hydrogen is generated it is a gas which is highly dangerous. I am not fooled so easily that I would even be interested in this. Don't lie to me if you really have something useful and worthwhile.
Let's bring it to market and let consumers decide. You don't have to have it.
Sure; if by 'bring it to market' you mean I won't be subsidizing you though a government tax or gimme scam..
I'll go one further: conservation.
I see enormous McMansions all around me.
With 3 or 4 or more enormous automobiles in the driveway.
I lowered my electricity consumption by more than 30% in one year by switching from traditional light bulbs to flourescents. The quality of the light was not agreeable but the bills went down and the bulbs lasted long enough to make a difference.
This year I swapped out all the flouros for leds and my usage went down another 20+%.
IMHO, IF the US government was really interested in energy independence and conservation it would not be gifting several thousands of dollars per auto to Tesla and Leaf purchasers but sending out rebate coupons for the purchase of american made led bulbs by the millions..
It took decades for the incandescent bulb to be replaced. I wonder why?
Congrats on your savings. Me, too.
Because people hated fluorescents and electricity was cheap.
Yeah. Absolutely no one wanted fluorescents and when they finally came to market no one bought them.
LOL.
Yeah. Absolutely no one wanted fluorescents and when they finally came to market no one bought them.
LOL.
99.99% of all elemental hydrogen is a product of the fossil fuel industry. Natural gas, to narrow it down a bit. Starting with CH4, and making any other carbon compound, you will have hydrogen left over. If your process is the least bit efficient, you will have unburned hydrogen.
Electrolytic hydrogen is ridiculously expensive to produce (though it might find a tiny niche in some far-future energy picture).
And metal hydrides are always made with hydrogen from those other sources. So you are talking about hydrogen storage. A hydrogen battery.
Why not just use an electron battery?
Still, it's interesting to watch the various hucksters and frauds promoting it...
[edit]
On second reading, I did not mean this to be advocating for TSLA. Fcuk Elon and the lithium battery he rode in on.
Here we go again with the alchemy denialism harshing our mellow.
There is no free lunch. The vehicle to go some three hundred miles will use XX?XX number of watts of power. The actual number depends on many variables; size, weight, terrain, wind, etc. etc. The conversion of water to H an O requires XX?XX watts depending on makeup of the water solution, wire size, etc. etc. The conversion of H into and out of the metal hydride (Li6 in this case) has a loss factor too. A gallon of gasoline contains about 33,000 watts of energy. An efficient car can go 300 miles on 10 gal of gas. There is no reason to believe the engine in the test car is more efficient so it will take about 330,000 watts of hydrogen energy released from the metal hydride to go 300 miles. Assuming a very high 80 percent conversion (probably closer to 30%) the solar panel will have to put out about 400,000 watts to charge the car with hydrogen. A typical house solar unit can produce 5000 watts/hour or about 40Kw per day depending on season, solar array design, etc. etc. Ten to thirty days of solar from a house unit may or may not get your car 300 miiles. For my own brother I could not make a better deal.
Gas to Kw conversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
they could get rid of those bottom 3 colored stripes if they depopulate the world, then those top 4 colored stripes could possibly power whats left
Biodiesel is people! It's PEOPLE!!!1!
soylent bio-diesel, it's not just for dinner anymore
If we could just figure a way to have the politicians and banksters first in line to the blender.
I think there was a Monty Python sketch about that...
first the guillotine, then the blender
https://youtu.be/RicaXxiU1WM
Don't confuse ultra libtards with the facts..... Their minds are already made up.
And remember, when they say we need to move to renewable energy, they mean us, not them. Case in point Al Gore, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Trump, etc. Flying all over hell and gone with their hydrocarbon fueled aircraft..... But, I digress. Libtards.... Conservatards.... what's the difference? Where are the fucking human beings that don't align to a political affiliation, and think for their fucking selves? Will this shit ever stop?
I will start worrying about global warming / climate change when I see Al Gore living in a cardboard box. Until then, I am not the least bit worried about it.
Double post.... oops
I still use wood for heat : )
Go Wood!
Where I live, a lot of people use wood for heat. Its virtually free around here to anyone who owns a chain saw.
** Trifling BS alert **
I'll bet your chainsaw needs gasoline!!!!
Chainsaw? I barely need my axe. There's always dead wood around.
Human power.
** Super Trifling BS alert **
I'll bet your body is powered using food delivered in trucks that need gasoline!!!!
Wood is veru efficient...it heats you twice. Once when you burn it, and once when you cut it.
Wood -the original renewable energy source..
Still a popular choice in Africa.
quickly renewable wood and the rocket stove. Its practically steam by the time it comes out if you capture the waste heat and run the pipe through your home. Many of the solutions, like insulation, straw bale homes, passive solar designs and rocket stones are so simple and affordable no wonder our corrupt leades" never point them out
We have not needed energy from coal, oil, gas, or nuclear (or surface roads) for more than 50 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lyXi1efbYrk#t=4028
"Renewables" right up there on the stupid unicorn list with "Green," and "eco." "Save the Planet" is the most insane phrase I have ever heard.
No shit. Wood...... It's a fucking renewable resource.....
It's actually interesting to see that forests have been cut down (mostly for agricultural exploitation) at an alarming rate, especially the past 50 years or so.
While 'renewable', it is not infinite. Any resource, if drawndown faster than it can be replenished, will not last forever...just look at the underground aquifers in the western US.
http://olduvai.ca
All we need is more efficient wood burners. MOre energy, less pollution. They are available in Europe.
Where they don't have much forest, but yeah.
All the more reason to burn efficiently.
A lot of cool biomass processing and burning equipment in Europe, but it's expensive. Basically nothing available in US.
I was looking into woodchip boilers a few years ago. The city had a dump site for wood chips. Huge piles for the taking. I only found one wood chip boiler in the US. It was a huge outdoor boiler, not something a household would use or could afford. I started tinkering with an auger-fed rocket stove boiler, but had to put the project on hold.
Smart usage and moderation are key.
Yeah, nobody ever talks about how much pollution China puts out when producing the equipment used to harvest those "renewables." They're only as renewable as the equipment used to harvst them.
China seems to be exempt from any pollution standards. and living there is hell.
Now Japan has nice clean nuclear energy ......
They have a different atmosphere.....
When you see that chart a little further down the road coal, NG and oil are going to be shrinking. We can do something about the coal use because that decline is artificial but oil and NG will decline before too long no matter what we do. With the liquids you will see the declines in NG first. Yeah I know, downvote away.
Unless you prescribe to the abiotic oil theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
"complex hydrocarbons" ... hydrogen & carbon....
Yeah, even if abiotic "theory" were true, that still doesn't deal with the rate at which oil is created.
Very true. We are definitly using it up faster than it's being created; at least that's what the media tells me. Shouldn't oil prices be $200+ per barrel by now? How is it we are in such a glut of oil? Maybe it isn't depleted as fast as we think? Maybe there is something to it?
Look at how oil is produced today and compare that to the 1920s. You don't need the media to tell you what the answer is there. The problem is that the price of production and the price that people can afford is starting to differ. The price of oil cannot match both.
Follow the trail from wellhead to gas pump. There are too many middlemen with their hands out.
Energy trading, my ass.
Look at the equipment required to get oil out of the ground today and compare it to the equipment required in the 1920s. Big, big difference. Look at the $550 billion in junk bonds issued by the energy sector just to keep up, a lot of which were issued when oil was $100/bbl.
How much is a commodity that you need to live worth when you can afford to pay $30/unit and it costs $100/unit to produce? What is the price of that commodity?
They lose $60 on every barrel, but will make it up in volume.
Look at the proliferation of middlemen since the 1920s.
We need the commodity to live, because alternatives have been stifled.
In this centrally planned economy, run mainly on political considerations, it is impossible to know what oil costs, how much oil there is or even where it is.
Or you can jsut look at the giant drilling rigs that are required to get at the oil today and compare that to the gushers that we had in the early 20th century. But that would give you an answer that makes sense.
Technological advances make today's rigs as economically feasible as yesterdays rigs. So looking at the rigs alone gives you an answer that is naive.
Too many middlemen; governments, bankers, refiners, etc.
"Companies like Tesla are spending billions of dollars on battery megafactories that will have a great impact on our energy use".
It's very easy to spend billions.... of other peoples money...ie: the taxpayer, who has no say so in the matter!
I don't give a shit what Tesla does, just do it on your own fucking dime!
So where do you want to spend those tax $? Having the MIC police our oil in the middle east?
You prefer malinvestment(wealth transfer) to democrat donors.
The Republicans get paid, too.
Since I bought a Nissan Leaf, I suppose some Japanese politicians got paid off as well.
Tell you what, I'll write a letter to your congressman.
Personally,,, back in my wallet would be a great start.
I'd like all government subsidies back in my wallet.
That's why I'm voting for Hillary - no - I mean Jeb! - wait - it's Trump, for sure. Hmmm Ron Paul? Deez Nuts?
this model works fine when you put an elite population reduction program into place...
Renewables are useless without energy storage. Billions have already been spent to develope better batteries etc. to no avail. Tesla might succeed where others have failed but only a sucker would take that bet. Tesla is in business to sell stock, nothing more.
So energy storage has not improved between 1975 and now? I have to use EverReady batteries in my iPhone? I'm thinking nice big 'C' batteries.
The technology to store energy more efficiently has not been stifled by powerful vested interests, right?
http://techland.time.com/2013/04/01/peak-battery-why-smartphone-battery-...
The amount of power needed for the device has been dramatically reduced,,, the battery technology has remained about the same.
Dude, I had a hand held tape recorder in 1970 and I have an iPhone now. I can clearly see the batteries are completely different. For one thing the iPhone batteries are rechargable. For another they are much, much smaller and are made of entirely different materials.
Yeah the IPhone also uses less power.
"Billions have already been spent to develope better batteries etc. to no avail."
Billions have already been wasted and stolen pretending to try to develop better batteries. Think Solyndra. They weren't in batteries, but the scam is the same.
Could have created a similar graph 15 years about communications and how the internet is a joke relative to mass media, telephone, etc. Just another silly presumption based on a pretty graphic - the Tylers clearly like lots of pretty colors and nice graphs - meanignless as they are for predicting the future....
What happens when oil runs out? or another nuclear accident occurs? Just ridiculous to suggest that we shouldn't/can't leverage renewables as our primary power source. Solar alone will eventually dwarf the use of other sources. Problem is until the powers that be can control it, well, it won't happen on any serious scale. At some point energy will be self managed and controlled - eliminating the need for a "grid" - how long? Well, you have to ask the criminals - energy companies and gubmints....
Enhanced communications rely on electricity. Mass media, telephones and etc. ain't life or death. Knowledge is power, but it won't run your A/C.
And what energy source is going to be used to mine the materials to take advantage of the solar energy? What energy source is going to be used to process them into a form that you can use to harvest energy? What energy source is going to ship that finished product? and what is the EROEI on that equipment that was produced? "Renewables" aren't so renewable.
NO love for Throium LFTR ?
Those rods aren't going to sit quietly in the pool forever...
We should have been putting full fuel cycle (thorium or not) nuclear reactors in 2 decades ago and developing the infrastructure for the manufacture of liquid fuels at the same time. Thorium has potential, but there is a lot of engineering that needs to be done. But most of the fuel for nuclear plants does not get burned up because we do not have a full fuel cycle. That leads to long lived transuranic elements that are really nasty. As for the fuel rods sitting in the pool, most of them are sufficiently cool because they've been in there for a long time. There simply is no place that is politically feasable to put them, so they stay in the pools.
Because the industry has been run by and for the war-dogs over the last six or seven decades, little to no engineering effort was put into any technology that destroys those transuranics. So, no thorium cycle, etc.
The thorium-fluoride-liquid chestnut always gets dragged out of the fire in these discussions, and it is vaporware. I seriously doubt that the technical problems will ever be solved, and some of them may be quite un-solvable. Merely having run a prototype liquid reactor for an afternoon in 1956, and then shutting it down forever, is not really a demonstration of feasibility.
When the discussion gets really intense, someone will pull out the old aneutronic fusion dealy-bob, for further examination and to wow everyone with his knowledge. The whiteboard diagrams for these things always have way too many 'then a miracle occurs' rectangles in them.
They had a prototype that ran for a period of years, not a mere afternoon. The big physics issue with thorium reactors is having enough fissile material to kick off the reaction. Given all of our nuclear waste, I'd say that we have that in spades. But we may as well not have that, for thorium reactors or for any other type of reactor due to the political lack of feasability of reprocessing those rods. Then there is the issue of sunk costs. A lot of FRNs went into developing the existing nuclear technology. Nobody is going to even attempt to sink the costs of developing it when there is an existing technology where the costs have already been sunk that is already approved by regulators, regulations being another hurdle. And yeah, Th reactors produce U233, which you can use for bombs, but they also produce U232 which poisons the reaction if you're trying to make a bomb, and is more difficult to separate out from U233 than it is to separate U235 from U238.
The problem I have with that 'sunk cost' technology is that they keep re-licensing the old rustbuckets from the '60s, until the reactor vessels are as brittle as a spun-sugar confectionary centerpiece. They will eventually fail, and sometimes in a very ugly failure mode.
I'm not really so worried about the bombs as all the piled-up high level radwaste a-la Fukushima. They need to get busy reprocessing that shit, or else bury it under about a kilometer of granite.
All of the plans to build new nuclear reactors, at least in the US, are based on designs that are derived from those sunk costs. You can argue that those plans will never be completed, and you may very well be right, but nobody is going to overcome the costs of developing that new technology due to the costs, which are probably augmented greatly by the regulatory hurdles that would also have to be overcome. Not only would the time, money and material need to be put into physical research, but you'd have to hire legions of attorneys, bureaucrats and lobbyists to get the government to sign off on it. It is entirely possible that it could be done, but it is highly unlikely. We, as a society, have become highly sclerotic.
Right now, the biggest design change that the nuclear industry would like is thinner containment shells.
The nuclear industry is like all the other industries these days. (Deez Nuts?) ...
The only design changes they want are the ones that will get them the maximum amount of goverrnment money and political power. If they can spend less on concrete, or get more subsidies for mining, they go for it. If their clients read any of that old 'too cheap to meter' propaganda and want reduced utility rates, they oppose that.
Reprocessing and recycling and other frugalities do not meet the requirement.
Like the medical industry, the agribiz industry, the 'financial' industry ...
A really dry engineer friend of mine commented on the waste problem so - "People are stupid! That stuff is HOT! Encase it in stainless steel and concrete, circulate water around it and HEAT HOMES!
Just using renewables for personal consumption versus production will do most of the trick. It would certainly give individuals more control over their energy needs. Also it would cut pollution and make the eco-control freaks leave the people alone.
"Renewables" aren't "ecofriendly." They just move the pollution and mining over to other countries in our globalized economy. They only seem nice because their production is out of sight, and thus out of mind. If you want to make a difference on energy consumption, food accounts for 20% of our energy use. Look at how energy is expended in our food system and take steps to reduce that.
I buy locally grown organic food.
Energy savings on the lack of chemical fertiizer alone. Then there's shipping costs.
Eco control freaks will never leave people alone. It's not about the environment, it's about the control...