Posts Tagged regulation

The new “green” nuclear power

A recent article in Wired discussed a “new”ish method of nuclear power utilizing thorium instead of uranium.  It appears to be cheaper, safer, more efficient, takes up less space and goes forever.  So why can’t we get more buy in?  Nuke is nuke I suppose.  Lets forget the cap-n-trade crap or quit burning bundles of carbon to get to Copenhagen and develop this stuff! That’s my “global warming” answer.  Now only if the government will back off to allow it and hopefully some archaic nuclear utilities will explore it too.  One of the big proponents, Kirk Sorensen, runs a blog called “Energy from Thorium“.  Check it out, the first “open source project” for nuclear power.  The article is excellent and interesting. Check out this comparison sheet from the article of three possible reactors:

  • Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor
  • Fuel Uranium fuel rods
  • Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium
  • Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
  • Coolant Water
  • Proliferation potential Medium
  • Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
  • Seed-and-Blanket Reactor
  • Fuel Thorium oxide and uranium oxide rods
  • Fuel input per gigawatt output 4.6 tons raw thorium, 177 tons raw uranium
  • Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million
  • Coolant Water
  • Proliferation potential None
  • Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone
  • Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
  • Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
  • Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
  • Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
  • Coolant Self-regulating
  • Proliferation potential None
  • Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
  • Well, I’m sold (at least enough to want to explore it further!)

    Post to Twitter

    Tags: , ,

    John Stossel: Protocol for Climate Change

    John Stossel always levels the playing field a bit. In this clip, he discusses climate change with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute. The key point is not an argument over whether it is good to live sustainably but whether the methods paraded by most are worth the paper they are written on! It’s not even an argument over whether your Hummer really hurts the environment, just a look at the realities of the proposed “solutions”. Check it out! under 10 minutes…

    Post to Twitter

    Tags: , , ,

    Apple, Google, AT&T, and the FCC?

    Well, apparently the FCC doesn’t like to see siblings quarrel.  It’s latest venture into regulatory practice has it asking questions about why Apple rejected the latest Google App?  Why!?!?  This is not a question of monopoly or cruel business treatment!  It isn’t a matter of unacceptable moral programming!  (not that either should be their biz).  It is simply one business rejecting a product of another!  Let the free market breath just a little bit please… Check out this article from Reason.

    Now the FCC wants the whole story. Last week, it sent an abrupt letter to all three companies—Google, Apple, and AT&T—demanding answers. Why the rejection? Was AT&T involved? Is this normal? What are Apple’s usual policies for rejecting an app?

    A better question, however, might be why the FCC is sticking its nose into this business at all. As Jerry Brito of the Mercatus Center and Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation recently pointed out, it’s not clear that the agency has any authority to do so. Not that that’s stopped it before: As Thierer notes, the FCC has a long history of overreach. This may simply be a way of flexing its regularity muscle as its defines—and perhaps expands—its territory under the Obama administration.

    As it goes on, has it been necessary to meddle?  NO!! A lot of cool stuff has come from the competing cell companies since the iPhone’s inception. Let’s not stop now!

    Post to Twitter

    Tags: , ,