Thorium has some advantages over uranium: it is more abundant; it produces less toxic waste products, and its by-products cannot be used in weapons. Thorium reactors can also burn up existing nuclear waste.

According to Hoffman, “If thorium is so fantastic why isn’t it in wide use already? There have been prototype reactors built in the past. A pair of reactors operated in Germany between 1983 and 1989, and three operated in the US between the late sixties and early eighties. Alas, all of these plants were abandoned. In the US, the military was not interested in ‘safe’ atomic reactors, they wanted the enriched uranium and plutonium produced by uranium fueled reactors for use in weapons. The world’s largest consumer of civilian nuclear power turned its back on thorium because it did not produce dangerous enough waste products.”

Let’s now turn to geology to see where thorium comes from. A good overview is in USGS Circular 1336: “Thorium deposits of the United States.”

“Thorium minerals occur in alkaline igneous rocks and carbonatites, but the most concentrated deposits occur in epigenetic veins that surround alkaline igneous complexes. Thorium’s genetic association with alkaline igneous rocks also places thorium in close association with minerals that host other valuable elements, such as those containing rare earth elements (REE), titanium, niobium, and phosphorus. Large titanium deposits can exist in the ultramafic units of the alkaline igneous

complex. In addition to metallic resources, many of the rock units of these alkaline complexes, such as nepheline syenite and carbonatite (an apatite source), can have industrial mineral uses in their raw crushed form.”

The principal thorium minerals are: Monazite (Ce,La,Y,Th)PO₄, Thorite (Th,U)SiO₄, Brockite (Ca,Th,Ce)(PO₄) H₂O, Xenotime (Y,Th)PO₄, and Euxenite (Y,Ca,Ce,U,Th)(Nb,Ta,Ti)₂O₆.

The map below shows known sources of thorium in the United States. The two largest deposits are Lemhi Pass district of Montana-Idaho and the Wet Mountains area of Colorado.

Thorium has been tried before. One technology was the liquid thorium fuel reactor with molten salt coolant for which interest is re-emerging as a potentially safe, cost-effective energy source. If the Norwegian experiment is encouraging, we will have another energy source, one with the advantage of also providing the increasingly important rare earth minerals also.

“For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.”

I rarely see NASA characterize carbon dioxide as a coolant.  However, in a previous post, I discuss how water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, has a net cooling effect.

“During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites.  This is both good and bad.  On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit.  On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.”

The solar storm was measured by the SABER instrument aboard the TIMED satellite. The link above provides graphics and a video.

The graphs below show the surge of infrared radiation that was dumped back into space by nitrous oxide (NO) and carbon dioxide.

Note on a previous NASA announcement:

My post: NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period, featured an article from NASA which included the following statement: “Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such ‘variables’ as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”

I and several others note that this page has disappeared from the NASA website, possibly because it was deemed  politically incorrect. Fortunately a screen shot was  preserved. I wonder if the primary NASA link to this post will survive political correctness.

This should be enough for the U.S. to be independent of middle-eastern and other unfriendly sources. However, a large part of these resources are unavailable due to government regulations. For instance, most of the off-shore component of these resources is unavailable due to the de facto moratorium on exploration (see Obama’s April Fools Joke.) Many prime on-shore areas are blocked due to various government regulations such as application of the Antiquities Act.

The resources reported above are just part of the potential ultimate resource. The graph below (from the Congressional report) shows the situation for Oil, but the pyramid structure holds true for all mineral resources.

 The “Reserves” category is that portion of the resource that has been proven and measured according to strict rules and reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission as bankable assets.

 The “Undiscovered technically recoverable” category also has a strict meaning. This category consists of those areas that have geological characteristics similar to those of producing areas. These estimates are made by the U.S. Geological Survey for on-shore resources and by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (formerly the Minerals Management Service) for off-shore resources.

The bottom and largest resource category is the “Discovered and Undiscovered sub-economic resources.” These deposits may be currently sub-economic because of the state of technology, the state of supply and demand, or the state of regulation. Shale gas was in this category until very recently. Methane hydrates are still in this category.

When I first began working as a geologist, oxide copper deposits were in the bottom category because there was no economic way to exploit this resource on a large scale. However, with development and widespread use of solvent-extraction/electro-winning technology, these deposits because economic and are now responsible for a significant part of our copper production.

Human ingenuity produces the technological innovations and human ignorance or ideology produce the regulatory impediments. With a more rational energy policy the U.S. could have more jobs and more secure sources of the natural resources we depend upon.

See also:

Obama Clueless on Energy – Part 1

Obama Clueless on Energy – Part 2

Obama administration still clueless on energy

Obama says Drill Baby Drill just not in the United States

Gasoline Prices and the Obama Energy Policy

Clean Coal: Boon or Boondoggle?

Reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev of the Santiago Times sets the scene:

The driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert in northern Chile, wouldn’t seem an auspicious place for biofuel production.

Biotechnology experts, however, may have found a way to turn one of the desert’s only available plants, the cactus, into energy.

A US$500,000 pilot project in the Río Jorquera Valley in the Copiapó province aims to reduce Nopal cactus stems to high-energy dry briquettes that can be burned in coal-fired thermoelectric plants.

The five-acre experimental plantation will produce sufficient scientific data on cactus biomass production in arid conditions by the end of 2013, and will then begin supplying fuel to a small-scale onsite power station.

The project’s leader, Prof. Alexis Vega of Universidad Mayor’s Biotechnology Institute in Santiago, believes a pilot-scale plantation of 420 acres will be able to sustain 1.5 megawatts per hour (MW/h) of electricity generation.

At an estimated cost of US$112 per MW/h, cactus biofuel is competitive with fossil fuels at current global prices and is much cheaper than other sources of alternative energy in the region such as wind or solar.

“This is an opportunity to diversify the local economy by utilizing marginal soil—land which has little water and few agricultural alternatives,” said Vega.

The researchers hope to develop the plantation to a level where they can begin supplying large electrical utilities in northern Chile.

One of the advantages of the cactus plantations is their proximity to energy-hungry mining operations. Utilizing locally available sources of energy would reduce the need for costly energy shipments from the south, Vega explained.

“Four years ago, when we approached the big power distributors they told us no. Now the moment has arrived—they are keen to participate.”

A law passed in 2010 binds Chile to generate 10 percent of its electricity from renewable, non-conventional sources by 2024.

At present the figure stands at around five percent, and Vega believes the government’s support for alternative energy puts the nation well on course to meeting the target.

Apart from the environmental benefits, researchers believe the scheme also holds substantial economic potential.

Southern Atacama’s traditional crop has been the table grape, the profitability of which has fallen steadily in recent years due to growing competition from Peru and Argentina.

As cactuses require at most a third of the water used by a grape plantation of the same area, there are large potential savings for farmers, as well as stable year-round jobs.

“For the small declining indigenous communities of northern Chile this is a real development opportunity,” said Vega. “These people can stay on the land, produce fuel for their own use, and sell the surplus, instead of migrating to the cities where they will remain poor.”

According to a report from Universidad Mayor, the cactus can be used in two ways: 1) anaerobic bio-digestion can produce methane for use as a feedstock for electrical generation, much as we harvest methane from landfills here in Tucson; or 2) the prickly pear pads can be dehydrated using solar energy, then pelleted and used as a co-combustion fuel in coal-fired plants. The cactus plantations will have to be irrigated and fertilized to allow a harvest every six months. An added benefit, if the project proves feasible, is that this biofuel is produced from a non-food crop and will provide year-round jobs rather than seasonal employment common to most crops. The goal of the project is to produce at least the equivalent of 40 tons dry matter per hectare per year which they deem competitive with other biofuels.

The book is about ideas and solutions to our energy problems. “Any solution or group of solutions will be based on total energy systems. The systems involved include power-grid stations, transmission lines, fuel procurement and manufacture, waste disposal, local power generators, vehicles and vehicle power systems, transportation and distribution systems for fuels, and maintenance and repair facilities.”

Johnson laments that we don’t develop more of our own domestic resources. “America has a virtual sea of oil within its borders and around its shores. Thanks to what I believe to be misdirected effort to influence elected officials by some overzealous environmentalists, the most accessible of our known oil fields are off limits to American oil companies.” At the same time, he proposes to transition away from our use of fossil fuels for transportation and electrical power. This reduction in fossil fuel use is not because of any concern over carbon dioxide emissions, rather, Johnson resents our having to give our dollars to unfriendly or despotic foreign countries. He has a section devoted to the global warming issue.

To transition away from fossil fuels, Johnson advocates more use of biofuels, made from non-food sources, and use of geothermal energy. He explains each in detail.

Johnson has a chapter on politics and expresses some well-placed cynicism. “The reality of politics and political ideologies means that many politicians and bureaucrats, who know virtually nothing about energy, energy systems, and the economics of energy, will be making many of the decisions on what systems we use, the vehicles we drive, and how we create and pay for the new infrastructure.”

All in all, this book is a good primer for anyone wanting to learn about energy systems, their potentials and problems.

The book is published by Senesis Word Publishing and is available from Amazon.

I don’t know if the Obama administration is simply clueless on energy, or if there is a determined ideological effort to cripple fossil fuel supplies in order to promote renewable energy, but the effect of administration policy is to discourage and hinder domestic production of fossil fuels.

In September, 2008, soon to be Energy Secretary Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Gas prices in Europe averaged about $8 a gallon at the time.

Contrary to administration rhetoric that the U.S. should become more energy independent, administration policy seems to be directed to do all it can to stifle domestic production.

Following the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico, the administration imposed a drilling moratorium. That moratorium was lifted last October, but in fact still remains in force. The Interior Department has approved just one drilling application although more than 100 are pending. A federal judge ordered that the de facto moratorium be lifted but the administration has ignored that order. In fact, in early February, the federal judge held the Interior Department in contemp of court for dismissively ignoring his ruling to cease the drilling moratorium which the judge had previously struck down as “arbitrary and capricious.” Ironically, the de facto moratorium of Gulf drilling will deprive the federal government of $1.35 billion in royalties this year.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “Obama also reversed an earlier decision by his administration to open access to coastal waters for exploration, instead placing a seven-year ban on drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and Eastern Gulf of Mexico as part of the government’s 2012-2017 Outer Continental Shelf Program.”

 The U.S. has abundant resources of oil and natural gas in shale deposits. According to the U.S. Geological Survey the U.S. holds more than half of the world’s oil shale resources. The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The USGS’s most recent estimates (April, 2009) show the region may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – six times Saudi Arabia’s proven resources, and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years. But Obama’s Interior Department is reversing Bush-era policy by delaying leases saying they need to take a “fresh look” at the situation.

The EPA has added costly new regulations to refineries over concern with global warming. The EPA is also denying approval of the Keystone pipeline which would increase the amount of oil the U.S. receives from Canada by over a million barrels per day.

If all this were not enough, the Interior Department has instituted a new “wild lands” policy that will bypass Congress in establishment of wilderness areas which will further delay and restrict access to our mineral resources.

The next time you fill your car with gasoline, don’t blame the oil companies for the high prices, the fault lies squarely with Obama’s energy policy.

The press release begins: “At the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, says a new University of California, Davis, study based on stock market expectations. The forecast was published online November 8 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. It is based on the theory that long-term investors are good predictors of whether and when new energy technologies will become commonplace.”

Really? Might not geology have something to do with it? Predictions that we will run out of oil have been made almost since oil was first produced in the U.S. in 1859 in Pennsylvania.

The Energy Information Administration shows that world petroleum reserves in 1980 were put at 642 billion barrels. In 2010, EIA puts world reserves at 1,354 billion barrels. How can reserves more than double in the last 30 years in spite of the increasing consumption?

The fallacy in all these doomsday predictions is that they don’t appreciate the difference between how much of a resource actually exists, versus the term “known” or “proven” reserves. The term “known reserves” is a purely economic and legal construct, which has nothing to do with how much petroleum is on the planet. “Known reserves” are that part of the total resource which have been precisely measured by extensive drilling and other means, and are “proven” to be economically recoverable with present technology. It costs money to make these measurements; exploration companies have little incentive to get too far ahead because of the expense. Every year, for at least the past 100 years, published accounts of oil reserves have stated that we have just 10- to 30-years supply left.

This situation applies equally well to other mineral commodities. For instance, in 1950 the proven reserves of copper represented a 42-year supply. Although copper consumption quintupled since then, we currently have proven reserves representing at least a 50-year supply. The concept applies also to the estimated resource base itself. For copper in 1950, the estimated resource base was 100 million tons. Since then we have produced about 338 million tons and our current estimated resource base stands at 650 million tons. In other words, technology, good geologists, and the market always find more resources or suitable substitutes.

The UC study also ignores the fact that new discoveries are being made of new off-shore resources, tar sands, and shale oil and gas, and the fact that transportation fuels can be made from our vast resources of coal.

And how well did all those investors predict the sub-prime crisis?

Incandescent light bulbs waste much electricity by producing heat. Many governments have or are about to phase out incandescent light bulbs under the belief that other, more energy efficient lighting technology will reduce energy use.

Currently, artificial lighting uses 6.5% of the world’s primary energy, which translates into about 16% of world electrical generation, and it consumes about 0.72% of global GDP.

A new study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, takes exception to the assumption that newer technology will mean lower energy consumption.

The study authors note that “Lighting technology is evolving rapidly. Filament-based incandescent lighting is giving way to gas-plasma-based fluorescent and high-intensity discharge technology, and over the next 10- to 20 years, may give way to solid-state technology.”

It has been assumed “that consumption of light is relatively insensitive to the cost of light, and that evolution of lighting technology resulting in an increase in efficiency and a decrease in cost

leads to a decrease in the consumption of energy rather than an increase in the consumption of light.” The authors of the new study, however, reject that assumption and instead assume “a sensitivity consistent with simple extrapolations of past behavior into the future.” They also analyze the interplay between lighting, human productivity, and energy consumption.

The paper concludes: “A principal conclusion is that there is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous efficacies and lower cost of light. A secondary conclusion is that this increased consumption of light has the potential to increase both human productivity and the consumption of energy associated with that productivity.”

If this analysis is correct, then government policy to phase out incandescent light bulbs will have the unintended consequence of increasing energy use, just the opposite of what was intended.

Citation: J. Y. Tsao et al, 2010, Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 354001; doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/43/35/354001

The paper is highly mathematical in justifying its conclusions, but if you are game, you can read the paper here.

The Energy Gap

After three introductory chapters, the book devotes chapters, in turn, to coal, petroleum, natural gas, wind, solar, and green energy sources such as hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and tidal wave power. There are three chapters on nuclear energy including an explanation of the various types of nuclear reactors and the problems of waste disposal. Additional chapters are devoted to transportation, the energy grid, conservation & efficiency, and the politics of energy.

For each form of energy the authors delve into the history of formation, discovery, development, use, and reserves. The book contains over 200 illustrations, and five appendices. It is written in layman’s terms.

The authors promote nuclear energy and suggest that it should gradually replace coal as the major fuel for electrical generation. Although the U.S. has the highest installed wind generating capacity of any nation, about 25,000 MW, the authors say that wind and solar are not likely to become a significant resource because of the very high cost relative to fossil fuels, and because both wind and solar are intermittent and cannot be counted on to provide a steady peak generation capacity. They do promote these alternative types of energy production in niche markets which might have special advantage.

The authors are somewhat naive about mineral economics and worry that we will run out of fossil fuels before we fully develop alternatives. But “the harsh reality is that, other than hydroelectric power, most renewable technologies are not able to compete economically with fossil fuels.”

They present an energy plan which includes:

Use of renewable energy only where it makes sense.

Shift automobile and light truck production to hybrids and electric. This would increase need for electricity by about 15%. (The only reason for this shift is the author’s unsupported belief that we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I think this is impractical and people will not buy electric cars until battery technology makes it possible to go 500 miles between charges.)

Accelerate construction of new nuclear generating stations and add reactors to existing plants.

Make buildings more energy efficient.

Expand exploration for oil and natural gas which “will be needed until new nuclear plants can come on-line and our vehicle fleet is switched to electricity.”

The authors specifically say we should avoid biofuels because they cause more environmental damage than fossil fuels. They warn against “clean coal” because the infrastructure costs are too high and the possible hazardous effects of storage are too uncertain. (See my article “Clean Coal”: Boon or Boondoggle for background.

They also warn against methane clathrates because they think frozen deposits of natural gas are too risky to exploit.

While I disagree with some of their proposals, I recommend the book just for its extensive review of energy resources. The book is very up to date on energy technology and even discusses the Gulf oil spill.

The book is available at Amazon.com. The authors also maintain a very interesting website: The Resilient Earth.

For another take on the energy problem see A Free Market Energy Vision from MasterResource.

According to a press release by AZGS, “Over the next 3 years, data relevant to geothermal exploration and development will be digitized and published online from 46 states in a web-based, distributed, interoperable National Geothermal Data System (NGDS).

The Arizona Geological Survey was chosen as lead agency because it was already working toward the goal of collation and integration of spacial data, in conjunction with the U.S. Geological survey. The AZGS is a national leader in constructing a framework for geo- spacial data integration. Such a geo-spacial framework will be a valuable tool for other sciences also. It can, for instance, help integrate information on mineral deposits, vegetation patterns, wildlife occurrence and habitats, groundwater supply, and land use. It will allow scientists of many states and countries to share data. The AZGS program is also partnering with 21 European countries for spacial integration of scientific data.

There is already quite a bit of information about Arizona geothermal potential available online from the Arizona Geological Survey: http://www.azgs.state.az.us/geothermal_ngds.shtml Most of the geothermal research in Arizona was done in the late 1970s and early 1980s when there was an oil shortage.

The survey says “Geothermal energy abounds in the US, ranging from low-temperature, ground-source heat that can be extracted to cool homes in the summer and heat them in the winter; to direct use of low- to moderate-temperature water (68 F to 302 F) for homes, industry and commercial uses; to high-temperature systems capable of driving turbines and generating electricity.”

This program will give us a good assessment of the potential for geothermal energy as an alternative energy source, and provide a framework for integration of other resource studies.