New Global Energy documentary needs your support

[Azure]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of exploring all our options. I would push to seriously consider nuclear power all over Canada. There is no reason we still have to rely on coal. In between the natural gas and wind in Alberta, hydro in Manitoba, wind/hydro in Quebec/Ontario, and some more nuclear power plants in various provinces, we should easily be able to start reducing our reliance on coal and other 'non-clean' power sources.

But, it has to be done in the right way.

[Ozy_Flame]

Problem is that oil is not just produced for energy; it's also for plastics and other goods we use on a daily basis. It is far more integrated in our daily lifestyles that most of us realize. Well, maybe not in Alberta, but most everywhere else!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Problem is that oil is not just produced for energy; it's also for plastics and other goods we use on a daily basis. It is far more integrated in our daily lifestyles that most of us realize. Well, maybe not in Alberta, but most everywhere else!

Oil will be around for a long time. I do believe at some point we won't need the gasoline portion of it AS MUCH, but we still need all the other stuff we get from it.

The oil sands are the most popular thing to bash for the morons in the US who seem to think that getting oil from Saudi Arabia is better, and for the NDP hypocrites, who are just going for political brownie points.

With time they'll forget about it, and development will just keep on chugging along. And you know what else will keep on going? R&D into making the whole process a lot cleaner. Maybe carbon capture is the way of the future, and if it is, I would venture a pretty good guess that Alberta will lead the way. The Alberta government loves to throw around money like drunken fools, so maybe for a change they sunk a couple billion into the right idea.

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Problem is that oil is not just produced for energy; it's also for plastics and other goods we use on a daily basis. It is far more integrated in our daily lifestyles that most of us realize. Well, maybe not in Alberta, but most everywhere else!

Great discussion starting, and that is what this project is about fostering. Until we change the current narrative that is based on polarization, right and wrong, we won't come to an agreement of how to adapt our energy systems for the future.

Petrochemicals are responsible for most everything we touch - modern medicine, science, technology - including our ability to build wind turbines and solar panels. Shutting down oil sands may not be the answer, just like industrializing the oceans or deserts may not be the answer. We need to be far more critical in our thinking and innovations, and understand there's no perfect way to 2050 or beyond. Policy decisions need to be based on good science and an understanding of energy from a systems perspective - to do anything less than that is shortsighted.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Intentionalfilmguy

Policy decisions need to be based on good science

If only this was actually the case, and I don't mean just on energy issues. Politician's only care about the popular opinion, not science, unfortunately.

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by Hanni

If only this was actually the case, and I don't mean just on energy issues. Politician's only care about the popular opinion, not science, unfortunately.

And this project is an opportunity to address popular opinion and engage policy makers. It's not easy, but not doing something is unappealing.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Intentionalfilmguy

Take a closer look. It's not about that at all. In fact this story is of critical importance to the energy industry and getting a more balanced, rational, pragmatic and optimistic story out about the future of energy. It's about looking at all options from an energy systems perspective and understanding that all fuel sources whether it's oil, shale gas, coal, nuclear wind, solar, bio-fuels have positive and negative unintended consequences. Yet, right now the debate is focused on fossil fuels are only bad, and alternatives are all good, free and benign. This is not a realistic picture, and the best way to address this is through better energy literacy. Keystone XL shows what happens when debates are controlled by energy illiteracy and inaccuracy. We need to make vast improvements to how we producer, distribute and consume energy, but tossing out one system in favour of another system without more forethought and vision will potentially get us into bigger problems.

Take a deeper look and at who some of our partners are already.

I know you said fuel, but hydro based electricity is a major environmental offender as well that gets a totally free pass by most people.

Also:

http://www.thoriumdocumentary.com/

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of exploring all our options. I would push to seriously consider nuclear power all over Canada. There is no reason we still have to rely on coal. In between the natural gas and wind in Alberta, hydro in Manitoba, wind/hydro in Quebec/Ontario, and some more nuclear power plants in various provinces, we should easily be able to start reducing our reliance on coal and other 'non-clean' power sources.

But, it has to be done in the right way.

I would ask, how do we really define "clean", "sustainable", and "renewable"? These terms get used with out a rigorous methodology. Compact fluorescent light bulbs were said to be green, as was corn based ethanol. People say wind could reduce CO2, yet I don't believe there is any science that can yet back that claim up, and studies in Denmark would suggest that their forays into wind have not reduced CO2. The Three Gorges Dam in China has produced all sorts of unintended consequences, including drought.

Weighing trade offs and examining the interconnections of energy systems might be the best method of determining the right way.

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I know you said fuel, but hydro based electricity is a major environmental offender as well that gets a totally free pass by most people.

Also:

http://www.thoriumdocumentary.com/

I just made a comment about hydro, and you are right. See Three Gorges Dam in China. What's key is that nothing should be getting a free pass, we have to be rigorous with all energy sources. The we can determine what we consequences we will have to accept.

Thanks for the thorium link.

[SeeGeeWhy]

You're welcome. It's easy to distract the public... When you fill a floodplain with water, how much biodiversity gets destroyed with no pressure to build compensatory ecosystems (like oilsands mines actually do), how much carbon sink gets removed from the planet for decades, how much CO2 gets produced in the quarry, producing, hauling and pouring the concrete? For a more local example look up the "Site C" project in NEBC.

You're welcome for the link on thorium. The community is very open and have a lot of material published. You'll enjoy www.energyfromthorium.com and the thorium energy alliance on linked in.

Energy is essential to our quality of life, but it is just as essential to evaluate the total impact of how we generate, transport/transmit and utilize that energy. We don't get to live an amazing life without being mindful of how we do it.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Intentionalfilmguy

Yes, thorium for sure is a part of the discussion. Despite Fukushima(or perhaps as a result of - see George Monbiot's reversal), nuclear still has a future.

The Thorium video Photon linked to is very different from nuclear as we know it. India is currently developing a Thorium reactor, but it is really very similar to existing technology. LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor) is a VERY safe model and earlier this year the Chinese began work on developing it.

Truly a fascinating story. The byproducts is can create would be awesome, and it can burn up our existing nuclear waste as fuel.

Still a couple issues to address before commercial use is enabled.

Thanks for posting that Photon. I have been reading up on it for quite some time now. If anyone hasn't watched that video, you should (there are others to that are shorter, but go big or go home!)

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

You're welcome. It's easy to distract the public... When you fill a floodplain with water, how much biodiversity gets destroyed with no pressure to build compensatory ecosystems (like oilsands mines actually do), how much carbon sink gets removed from the planet for decades, how much CO2 gets produced in the quarry, producing, hauling and pouring the concrete? For a more local example look up the "Site C" project in NEBC.

You're welcome for the link on thorium. The community is very open and have a lot of material published. You'll enjoy www.energyfromthorium.com and the thorium energy alliance on linked in.

Energy is essential to our quality of life, but it is just as essential to evaluate the total impact of how we generate, transport/transmit and utilize that energy. We don't get to live an amazing life without being mindful of how we do it.

It's also easy to distract the public when you industrialize the ocean with wind turbines or tidal power, or build massive solar installations in the desert. There are no free rides on any of this, and that is what my project will help to demonstrate, but also to show that a systems approach will help build capacity for innovation.

Your last two points are excellent. I have not had a chance to research nuclear, thorium or fusion a lot yet, but look forward to learning a to more about it.

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

The Thorium video Photon linked to is very different from nuclear as we know it. India is currently developing a Thorium reactor, but it is really very similar to existing technology. LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor) is a VERY safe model and earlier this year the Chinese began work on developing it.

Truly a fascinating story. The byproducts is can create would be awesome, and it can burn up our existing nuclear waste as fuel.

Still a couple issues to address before commercial use is enabled.

Thanks for posting that Photon. I have been reading up on it for quite some time now. If anyone hasn't watched that video, you should (there are others to that are shorter, but go big or go home!)

I was at a great conference two weeks ago put on by the U of C ISEEE (one of my partners on the project) and there was an interesting presenter talking about what is happening in nuclear fusion. Check out this link about the work being done at the Lawerence Livermore National Lab. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missio...e_future/life/

It's still 20+ years away from commercial use, but could be a real game changer. Of course, we'll still need oil and petrochemicals, as well as other sources. The energy future is complex, but far from hopeless.

Thanks.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Intentionalfilmguy

I was at a great conference two weeks ago put on by the U of C ISEEE (one of my partners on the project) and there was an interesting presenter talking about what is happening in nuclear fusion. Check out this link about the work being done at the Lawerence Livermore National Lab. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missio...e_future/life/

It's still 20+ years away from commercial use, but could be a real game changer. Of course, we'll still need oil and petrochemicals, as well as other sources. The energy future is complex, but far from hopeless.

Thanks.

Appreciate the link. Have read some info on it before. Still think LFTR is a far less complicated approach, with far more benefits. We probably will be buying LFTRs from the Chinese by the end of this decade if we don't do it ourselves....

[Intentionalfilmguy]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Appreciate the link. Have read some info on it before. Still think LFTR is a far less complicated approach, with far more benefits. We probably will be buying LFTRs from the Chinese by the end of this decade if we don't do it ourselves....

I agree.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

The Thorium video Photon linked to is very different from nuclear as we know it. India is currently developing a Thorium reactor, but it is really very similar to existing technology. LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor) is a VERY safe model and earlier this year the Chinese began work on developing it.

Truly a fascinating story. The byproducts is can create would be awesome, and it can burn up our existing nuclear waste as fuel.

Still a couple issues to address before commercial use is enabled.

Thanks for posting that Photon. I have been reading up on it for quite some time now. If anyone hasn't watched that video, you should (there are others to that are shorter, but go big or go home!)

China's mandate is to produce LFTR reactors within 20 years. The Russian Federation and The French are also doing research into it.

There are a handful of private companies also racing to deliver a useful reactor (most notably Flibe Energy). A japanese JV, iThEMs, was designing a 10MW LFTR but closed shop this year.

At this point, it is just as important and costly to establish the supply chain for the fuel, FLiBe salts and handle the waste as it is to design, approve and construct the reactors.

Originally Posted by Intentionalfilmguy

It's also easy to distract the public when you industrialize the ocean with wind turbines or tidal power, or build massive solar installations in the desert. There are no free rides on any of this, and that is what my project will help to demonstrate, but also to show that a systems approach will help build capacity for innovation.

Your last two points are excellent. I have not had a chance to research nuclear, thorium or fusion a lot yet, but look forward to learning a to more about it.

You'll like this vid as well: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/201...n-from-dr.html

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

China's mandate is to produce LFTR reactors within 20 years.

China will produce them as soon as they find a way over a couple roadbumps. Just saying 20 years for their mandate is silly. If something is going to get done, urgency and/or resources will determine the timeline, not the mandate.

Heck, do you remember a recent article where some gamers tackled a complex problem in three WEEKS that had stumped "the pros" for more than a decade?

If memory is correct, the video Photon linked has a group at the end discussing solutions. They were not NASA scientists or the like, they were just smart people from different backgrounds. THAT is the type of participants needed to make this happen, and happen fast. Just like the gamers did.

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

There are a handful of private companies also racing to deliver a useful reactor (most notably Flibe Energy).

Yes, I am aware of that. Kirk Sorenson, the guy from the video posted by Photon, started that company. I think it is even mentioned IN that video. Kirk is a former NASA scientist who knows his stuff.

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

A japanese JV, iThEMs, was designing a 10MW LFTR but closed shop this year.

Why? Without stating a reason, this notation provides zero input into the conversation. And regardless, if one fails to succeed (for whatever reason) how is that relevant in any way to any one elses success?

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

At this point, it is just as important and costly to establish the supply chain for the fuel, FLiBe salts and handle the waste as it is to design, approve and construct the reactors.

What the heck are you talking about? The fuel is essentially your every day Thorium. It is WASTE product from rare earth mining. Miners would rather give you the product for free than pay for it to be safely stored (which they are currently mandated to do in the US.) I think Kirk talks about THAT in this video as well.

Forgive me, I have watched every video (and read every article) I can find on this, and am forgetting what tidbit is from which one. The one Photon linked to had many of the important points.

Some of the "waste" as you call it is sometimes sold for profit. Take Plutonium 238 for example (NOT Plutonium 239). 238 is used by NASA for all their long range probes. They have run out of it. And it is not being created any other way (economically). LFTR would create this just as a simple byproduct. Win. And this isn't the only highly valuable byproduct.

Actual waste is ridiculously small compared to current nuclear plant waste (which as I indicated before LFTR can BURN UP as fuel.) If anything, costs will be SAVED here, not incurred.

Now you may have not articulated all of your points well here, so if I am missing something that you would like to clarify, please let me know.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

What the heck are you talking about? The fuel is essentially your every day Thorium. It is WASTE product from rare earth mining.

The raw product is your every day Thorium. It is not fuel ready.

I'm guessing he is talking about the initial cost of setting up a supply chain of prepared Thorium for use as a fuel.

However, unlike uranium-based breeder reactors, thorium requires irradiation and reprocessing before the above-noted advantages of thorium-232 can be realized, which makes thorium fuels initially more expensive than uranium fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium...FWickleder2006

[Jake]

Tidal energy is beginning to get research funding in BC and on the east coast. Are you looking into this or only Alberta relevant energy alternatives?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Intentionalfilmguy

What's key is that nothing should be getting a free pass, we have to be rigorous with all energy sources. The we can determine what we consequences we will have to accept.

If you're considering being rigorous with all energy sources then might I suggest that you devote a small portion of your program to the Environmental Assessment process as the frontline for minimization of impacts.

IMO ... more often than not there is minimal effort to collect some form of reasonable baseline data by unqualified personnel, then the word "mitigate" is thrown in to get the stamp and move on to the next stage.

But ... what really confuses the hell out of me is that there is ZERO requirement for any kind of post development monitoring to measure the impacts so that lessons can be learned for similar future projects.

And that's not to mention that some activities escape without any form of stewardship. You know the declining salmon population in the west?

Exploration permits for oil, gas, and mining are granted through the Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (MEMPR), respectively. The OGC is not obliged to contact DFO about projects that may harm migratory fish habitat. Similarly, the MoE’s Environmental Stewardship Division and its biologists are generally not in the loop on OGC developments because the OGC has been granted approval authority under some Provincial legislation.

http://www.sfu.ca/biology/faculty/re...iew%202008.pdf (page 71)