[FoRK] Malthusian machinations

Jeff Bone jbone at place.org
Tue Jun 15 10:15:54 PDT 2010


On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:22:10AM -0500, Jeff Bone wrote:
> 
>>> Not good enough. Let's make the target 1% of all electricity world  
>>> wide
>>> produced by thorium reactors, by 2020.
>> 
>> Make it 1% of TODAY's production level by 2020 and you, sir, have  
>> yourself a bet. (Somebody else will still need to write it up and  
> 
> According to 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#Nuclear_power 
> nuclear was 6.3% of world's total primary energy supply in 2005.
> For 2006 it was 2658 TWh (23.3 EJ), or 16% of world's total electricity
> production. So it's what, some 30 TWh annually from thorium
> reactors (purely thorium fuel cycle, no HEU nor Pu but
> for kickstart, all net power must come from in situ
> conversion, numerical fractional contribution to power output
> is acceptable) by 2020? I'm game.
> 
> P.S. http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf
> 
>> adjudicate, though.). Stakes?  I'm open to suggestion. Something  
>> practical and non-financial, valuable enough to sting just a little  
>> but not too much for whoever's tighter at that point. Suggestions?   
>> Journal subscription? Charitable contribution? An instrument of some  
> 
> A year's worth of Science Magazine subscription, perhaps? Assuming
> they're still around 2020, but that's probably a safe bet.

Re:  IEER, yeah, yeah, old news.  Several of those assertions are controversial (as are the opposing views as well, of course.)

Re:  bet, you're on.  Science subscription or its rough equivalent should it not be around.

> Presumably you would just plot the current annual growth on a linear
> semilog, and see where it intersects. Of course, there's some
> uncertainty due to considerable economic/ecological/military 
> disruption heading our way. I wouldn't be willing to make that
> bet just now. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany 
> it's some 1.1% of electricity today and it expects to reach 25% by 2050,
> so presumably (there's considerable uncertainty how many
> reactors will be shut down by then, it's been pretty constant
> at 150 TWh since 1985, or so) the breakeven is still ways
> off.

Indeed.


jb




More information about the FoRK mailing list