Archive for the ‘Germany’ Category
the thorium fuel future, or not…
So what about thorium as part of our clean energy future? Are there any thorium reactors operating? How do they work? How do they compare to uranium-based reactors?
Well, there appear to be a lot of plans on drawing boards, for good reason, it seems. Thorium is about three times more abundant than uranium, and is potentially a safer source of nuclear energy, which, ironically, is largely why it was overlooked early on, due to uranium’s far greater weapons potential. To quote Wikipedia,
The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates “there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years.”
When used in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a type of molten salt reactor (MSR), far less nuclear waste results. And there are many other positives. An estimate by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Carlo Rubbia, for example, that a ton of thorium can produce the energy of 200 tons of uranium and three and a half million tons of coal.
And there’s more stuff about thorium’s advantages that sound just too good to be true. Wikipedia lists nine positives in bullet points. However, there are substantial start-up costs, and there are problems with ‘breeder reactors’ and proliferation, which I’ll try to understand later.
Reading the story of uranium v thorium from the late forties into the seventies, you can clearly see that the military side of the military-industrial complex, especially in the USA, won out at the expense of safe commercial and domestic energy use. But what with the recent urgency about alternatives to fossil fuels, and the concern (methinks largely unwarranted) about uranium-based nuclear, thorium is inching its way back into favour. Sabine Hossenfelder reports on its soon-to-be-arrival in Europe while castigating the German state’s pulling the plug on nuclear in general (Steve Novella of the Skeptics’ Guide is also bemused). I reckon they’re gonna change their changed mind eventually.
Anyway, the news is that the Netherlands and France, two countries that embrace nuclear power, have teamed up to bring small thorium reactors to Europe. NAAREA, a French alternative energy company, and Thorizon of the Netherlands, have combined their smarts and funds, and I’ll quote Sabine:
NAAREA is already working on small nuclear reactors, and they want to combine their technology with the thorium cores from the Dutch.
This is the concept of small, transportable nuclear reactors that I first read about in Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now some years ago. The fact is, though, that progress seems to be slow in this field, in spite of all the global warming concerns. NIMBYism is still a problem, as well as whole of government negativity, as in Germany. Nations that are more keen are India, which has the world’s largest thorium reserves, China, Canada and the USA.
So what about here in Australia? We have actually banned nuclear energy, both federally and in every state and territory, and there appears to be no appetite for changing the situation. This also means there’s no avenue for those interested in nuclear energy and its engineering and technical requirements to gain expertise in the field here. I suspect the only factor that will change our governmental (and popular) mindset will be the proven success of new thorium-based reactors elsewhere. Of course, Australia has the perfect climate for solar and storage, so there’s little appetite for changing direction – though it should be noted that Australia ranks with the USA as having the third largest reserves of thorium, behind India and Brazil.
So how does thorium work as a nuclear fuel? I’ve no idea, so here goes with another particle of my lifelong learning. First, to the World Nuclear Association. Three points:
- [Thorium] is fertile rather than fissile, and can only be used as a fuel in conjunction with a fissile material such as recycled plutonium.
- Thorium fuels can breed fissile uranium-233 to be used in various kinds of nuclear reactors.
- Molten salt reactors are well suited to thorium fuel, as normal fuel fabrication is avoided.
The first point is sort of self-explanatory – thorium nuclei (232) can’t be split apart by ‘thermal neutrons’ (neutrons travelling above a certain velocity), but they can be converted into fissile material via ionising radiation. The nuclei may then capture neutrons and be converted to fissile material (uranium-233, in the case of thorium).
The third point obviously needs some explaining. The reactors used to generate thorium-based energy are called liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs), which are:
a molten salt type of reactor [MSR], meaning that the fuel inside the core is actually in a liquid form in a salt formation that circulates inside the core. It is hot and acts as a fuel and coolant at the same time, meaning that the heat from this liquid fuel that is circulating inside the core is being transferred to the heat exchanger and to the rest of the components and electricity is produced similarly to any other type of reactor.
Elina Charatsidou (see references)
That’s a start. The differences between this type of liquid fuel and the highly structured solid fuel rods create both advantages and disadvantages…
So, as mentioned, thorium-232 is quite abundant and, unlike uranium-235, it isn’t fissile (which makes it similar to uranium-238), but its ‘fertility’ allows it to capture neutrons, so transmuting into protactinium-233 which then decays into uranium-233, which is fissile. This, I think, is the important point. It’s the splitting of the uranium-233 that produces the efficient energy, not thorium itself. And Elina points out something I don’t quite understand as yet – ‘there are 2 ways that can be produced – uranium-233 can be produced inside the core, or outside and then placed inside the core as a fuel for the thorium reactors’.
Ultimately, though Elina Charatsidou and other informed commentators aren’t quite buying into the hype of some about a thorium future. It should be developed, and it’s needed as our population continues to grow and, more importantly, become more prosperous. We need to get behind it as part of a multi-faceted approach to our energy future.
For a more positive spin on thorium and new developments in nuclear energy, especially regarding storage, re-use, corrosion and cost factors, as well as issues around public-private ownership, the Copenhagen Atomics video, linked below, is well worth a look.
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Good News: Small Nuclear Thorium Reactors are Coming to Europe (Sabine Hossenfelder video)
Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now, 2018 (pp146-9)
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx
a bonobo world: the thirty percent rule
the parliamentary glass ceiling?
Canto: We talked about the thirty percent rule before. So where did it come from and what does it signify?
Jacinta: Well that’s very much worth exploring, because if it’s true that a 30% ‘infiltration’ of women into various social organisations – such as business corporations, governments, political parties, law firms, military organisations, NGOs, whatever – improves the efficacy of those organisations, then what about a 40% infiltration – or 60%, or 80%?
Canto: Or total control? The ‘males as pets or playthings’ argument comes up again.
Jacinta: So yes, before we go there – and I do think it’s a fun place to go – let’s look at the origins of the 30% rule, or the 30% aspiration, or whatever. The UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995 was considered, by some, as a major step forward, at least theoretically. It developed, and I quote, ‘strategic objectives and actions for the advancement of women and the achievement of gender equality in 12 critical areas of concern’, one of which was ‘women in power and decision-making’. In that section, I found this passage:
Despite the widespread movement towards democratization in most countries, women are largely underrepresented at most levels of government, especially in ministerial and other executive bodies, and have made little progress in attaining political power in legislative bodies or in achieving the target endorsed by the Economic and Social Council of having 30 per cent women in positions at decision-making levels by 1995. Globally, only 10 per cent of the members of legislative bodies and a lower percentage of ministerial positions are now held by women. Indeed, some countries, including those that are undergoing fundamental political, economic and social changes, have seen a significant decrease in the number of women represented in legislative bodies.
The section went on to expand on the need for female decision-making input in ‘art, culture, sports, the media, education, religion and the law’…
Canto: So this 30% target goes back even before the Beijing Conference. Fat chance of achieving it by 1995!
Jacinta: It’s a bit ironic that this conference was held in China, where women are supposed to hold up half the sky. You could hardly find a nation more male-dominated in its leadership. They’ve virtually outlawed feminism there, as yet another decadent western thing.
Canto: So, looking at this document, it includes an action plan for governments, political parties and others, including women’s organisations, NGOs and even the UN itself, but it doesn’t present any argument for this 30% target. Presumably they feel the argument is self-evident.
Jacinta: Interestingly, in the UN section, they’ve made the demands upon themselves even more stringent: ‘monitor progress towards achieving the Secretary-General’s target of having women hold 50 per cent of managerial and decision-making positions by the year 2000’.
Canto: Haha, I wonder how that went? No wonder many people don’t take the UN seriously.
Jacinta: Well, maybe there’s nothing wrong in aiming high. Aiming low certainly won’t get you there. Anyway, there’s a 2015 update on women in power and decision-making, which finds slight improvements in political power positions, very unevenly distributed among nations, and there are problems with obtaining data in other decision-making fields. In short, creeping progress in empowerment.
Canto: What’s interesting, though, is the argument that having a higher percentage of women in decision-making is a good thing due to basic fairness – women being 51% of the population – but because women are somehow better.
Jacinta: Well I haven’t found that argument in the UN documents (though I haven’t looked too thoroughly), but I must say it’s an argument that I like to put to anyone who’ll listen, even though I’m not too sure I believe in it myself. And when I do, I get a fair amount of pushback, as the Yanks say, from men and women.
Canto: Well I do believe in it, because bonobos. They’re an example of a female-dominated culture of advanced apes, after all. And they’re sexy, if somewhat more hirsute than I’d prefer.
Jacinta: Yes – I’m not quite sure why I’m not so sure. I think maybe it’s just the blowback I get – though it’s often anecdotal, some story about some lousy female boss. A recent article in Forbes (authored by a male) has this to say:
Over the past decades, scientific studies have consistently shown that on most of the key traits that make leaders more effective, women tend to outperform men. For example, humility, self-awareness, self-control, moral sensitivity, social skills, emotional intelligence, kindness, a prosocial and moral orientation, are all more likely to be found in women than men.
Check the links for evidence. He goes on to list the ‘dark side personality traits’ which are more common in men: aggression (often unprovoked), narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism – see the recent global financial crisis, the current pandemic and white collar crime…
Canto: And they’re the cause of most road fatalities and injuries, by a factor of almost 2 to 1, on a per capita basis. Mostly due to the 17-25 age group, crazy aggression and risk-taking, like elephants in musth.
Jacinta: Yes, and I’ve met men who seriously think women shouldn’t be allowed to drive. Moslem men actually, presumably brainwashed. And no doubt intent on brainwashing their kids. Anyway good on the UN for pushing this issue, and surely the success of women leaders in Germany, Taiwan, New Zealand, Finland and elsewhere, and the absolutely disastrous leadership of so many men during this pandemic – much of it yet to be properly investigated and assessed – will spur us on to more rapid change in the leadership field.
References and links
https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/intergovernmental-support/world-conferences-on-women
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/decision.htm
A bonobo world, etc 16 – bonobo countries and leaders, nationalism and internationalism
newspaper cover picture September 2015
If it’s reasonable to reduce the bonobo world to a few clichés – caring and sharing, making love not war, sexual healing – then maybe it’s reasonable to describe the USA, with its overblown military capacity which empowers it to intervene in other nations unilaterally, and its puritanical religious heritage which seeks to narrow the very concept of love, as the anti-bonobo world. Of course the country has its doves and communitarians, but it’s surely become famous, or notorious in recent times for its anti-government individualism, its aggressive jingoism, its extraordinary incarceration rate, its rich-poor divide, its gun culture, and other such charms.
Of course we’re observing the country at a very low ebb, with its criminal President sulking and predictably refusing to concede that he has been soundly beaten in the recent election, and the worst is likely yet to come. Courts are being inundated, death threats are flying, and no doubt private arsenals are being brought to a pitch of readiness. The Trumpets, or the Retrumplicans as some have called them, are preparing for their Alamo, but historians will look a lot less kindly on this one.
Certainly it’s a very diverse country, and many observers feel it would be better off if divided into two, or three, or more. This might encourage healthier competition and interaction between the Divided Nations. One nation might learn from its neighbour that being less punitive, say, in its drug or petty crime policies is ultimately more productive. Another might recognise that public-private partnerships in business are the key to revitalising its economy, and so provide a template for others to follow. Yet another might note that its severe anti-abortion policies are causing health and welfare problems not shared by its neighbours.
Then again, there’s already division into states, which each have a fair degree of autonomy, and that doesn’t seem to have reduced the national mess. And the USA seems to pay little attention to Canada, a far less obnoxious country overall.
So is there any serious possibility that the USA can become more bonoboesque? Or should we simply abandon it and look to Europe, or New Zealand perhaps? Or, shock horror, one of the Asian countries, such as Japan, or Taiwan if it still exists as an independent country by the time this writing is done? What signs of bonoboism should we look out for? Of course we don’t want to become more like bonobos in any precise way – hanging out in treetops isn’t really a human thing these days. But curbing our aggression, mainly though female power and the power of numbers or group support, and becoming more genuinely community oriented, sharing resources and tasks (including children and child-minding), and generally being more touchy-feely, these are real possibilities, and some might argue necessities, for a successful human future on a successful planet, that’s to say a planet we share with, and want to keep on sharing with, as many other forms of life as possible. If we look at nations, those rather artificial entities, for examples of the turn towards bonoboism, we find pluses and minuses everywhere. Japan is a more community-oriented nation than most, but its history of international violence and failure to come to terms with that history pose a serious problem, and overall its record on protecting and supporting other life forms, especially in the oceans, is pretty abysmal. It also has a problem with a dearth of women in leadership roles, in business and politics, which is particularly disappointing considering the country’s low birth rate. Women are staying in work longer, putting off or abandoning the idea of having children, so you might expect their leadership opportunities would be greater. This needs to be explored further in future posts.
The USA, though rather late in giving women the vote, no doubt considers itself a bastion of modern feminism, and as I write, President-elect Biden is seeking or being pressured to make his administration the most female in the country’s history. Yet the rugged individualism that the country still espouses has always had a male cast, with its gun ownership obsession and its dark, thuggish sub-cultures. The Me-Too movement also appears to have its typically American puritanical side, which I also intend to explore, with fearful delicacy, in future posts.
So my search for bonobo-world promise should take
me to places where female leadership has already been achieved, though more often than not by more or less solitary women in a largely male ocean. The most long-lasting female leader in recent times, in undoubtedly one of the world’s most influential countries, is Angela Merkel, who has been Germany’s Chancellor for over 15 years. She appears to be a centrist – a liberal leading a conservative government – and clearly a survivor, though that’s probably understating her effectiveness. Merkel landed herself in trouble of sorts during the 2015 European migrant or refugee crisis, when over a million refugees flooded Europe, fleeing from war-torn or highly destabilised countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems her own uncertainty as to how to handle the crisis reflected to a fair degree that of the German people. The country accepted a large number of refugees, and within a couple of years the flood had subsided, as had the crisis over Merkel’s leadership. One way in which she mollified the concerns of nationalists was to insist on Germany’s unity under Christianity. No doubt she is a sincere Christian, but as Yuval Noah Harari pointed out in Homo Deus, religion is very far from being the force it one was in Europe, and appealing to the best human values of tolerance, compromise and acceptance of diversity should suffice.
All this raises the question of whether there really are German or Australian or British values. As a teacher of international English who has taught students from scores of countries, I’ve found that it isn’t difficult to develop relations based on entirely human elements, such as trust, curiosity, humour and pride. Leaders for some reason like to speak of national characteristics, one hears this all the time. But are that nation’s neighbours really so very different? And is it better to emphasise our differences, or our similarities?
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel
Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus, 2016
https://theday.co.uk/stories/europe-engulfed-by-migration-crisis