When’s It Time To Stop Building Pipelines? How About Now?
Frequent commenter Frank Eggers notes on my post on the Dakota Access Pipeline: The material will be shipped whether or not the pipeline is built. If it is not shipped by pipeline, it will be shipped by rail and rail transportation is more dangerous than pipeline transportation.
Needless to say, I’ve heard the argument once or twice that the industry will proceed with or without a new pipeline. I’m not saying that it’s not true, but I don’t find it compelling.
Phasing out fossil fuels needs to start somewhere. Stopping building infrastructure to support this process sounds as good a place to start as any. In this case, the proposed pipeline has extreme consequences to the environment and to the sanctity of the land through which it’s scheduled to go.
In this case the oil that is being shipped is from the Bakken oil shale. Rail shipment of oil is not only dangerous but expensive relative to pipelines. Oil Shale has a very marginal EROEI. There has been some suggestion that this oil shale operation is a bit of a ponzi scheme. http://energypolicyforum.com/2013/04/07/is-the-bakken-profitable/
But before we think that lack of a pipeline may be enough to close down the operation ($70/barrel is often cited as the limit for oil shale,) there are some suggesting that even at $30/barrel Bakken is profitable. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-12/oil-at-30-is-no-problem-for-some-cost-cutting-bakken-drillers
Presently much of the oil is used domestically due to the difficulty of transportation. If pipelines are built, similar to the keystone project the oil will be sent to refineries and expected to get higher prices on the world market. https://theintercept.com/2016/09/01/dakota-access-export/ So we keep the pollution and oil companies keep the profits (if any.)\
One of the other objections to the pipeline was that eminent domain was invoked to take some of the land away from private property owners who refused to allow access. This may have been enough to bring some of the protestors on board.
Be sure to read my post via this link:
http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/10/24/native-americans-and-environmental-activists-wont-relent-on-dakota-access-pipeline/
I did not give the pipeline unqualified approval.
Graig,
The question you pose is a fantasy. The world currently runs on oil, no economy, no society, certainly not the USA can afford to be without a safe and secure supply.
You have a simple choice:
1) Ship by pipeline
2) Ship by railway
Any other alternatives are just absurd fantasies. The idea that shipping oil by rail will somehow reduce the need for oil, is clearly a nonsense.
But I can understand your support for the railroad option, considering the largest and most vocal donor to the US Democratic party also happens to own a large slice of the railroad infrastructure that ships oil !
Well, as George Will told me, “The future always looks like the past–until it looks like something else entirely.” That applies here in spades; it’s only a matter of time before we put such a squeeze on oil that it simply loses its value as a commodity. It’s hard to know exactly what will put a spear through oil. It could be environmental concerns that spark replacement technology. It could be that the technology path we’re on (i.e., electric transportation) will be enough to win the day.
The bottom line is that oil is going to go away; the only question is when.
Breath,
Um,…let’s see what it is that perplexes you.
Perhaps you know of another method apart from rail or pipeline to transport bulk crude overland ?
It’s an unfortunate historical circumstance that located most of the US refining capacity in the Southern US when the newer oil fields lie to the North.
Oil is an essential product, and will be for many, many decades to come. There is currently no realistic capacity to phase out oil.
Therefore stopping pipelines is not only pointless, but bad environmental practice. Opposition to pipeline construction ignores the reality that oil must be transported by some means, by creating a fantasy that if pipelines are prevented from being built, it would somehow reduce oil consumption.
In reality, it will just make the owners of rail rolling stock richer. (Craig will still fill his car at the servo!).
My logic is impeccable, Warren Buffett only became such a Democrat Party heavyweight with his investment in railway rolling stock, the Obama-Clinton policies changed immediately Warren Buffett’s influence was realized and suddenly embraced an anti-pipeline stance.
Craig, (a Democrat supporter ) also actively supports anti-pipeline policies, even though he must know that in reality such policies will only benefit the rich Democrat donors, at the expense of local communities and the environment.
Craig,
I have no problem with your sentiment, only your logic and sense of reality.
You prophetic advocacy doesn’t lack confidence, but like most idealistic prophesy lacks any detail as to how or when it will occur !
My objection is while you live in expectation of Utopia, you are creating great environmental harm in the real world, in the present reality !
Carefully constructed pipelines are a far more efficient,and environmentally beneficial method of transporting crude than rail (or even ship). This is an indisputable fact.
Opposition based on the expectation of Santa Claus, is irresponsible at best, at worst politically corrupt.
I am sure you can find some level of ownership with any donor in an attempt to justify any argument.
While ownership is suggestive it is not in and of itself a conflict of interest. Especially in this case where you assume a support of the Democratic Party by both the respondent and an unnamed donor, neither of which is shown to the party or each other.
Breath,
The Donor is Warren Buffet(and Associates), a fact which is hardly unreported, in fact so heavily covered by the US and foreign press I assumed you would be au fait with all the details and I had no need to reiterate has involvement. Perhaps more telling is his lobbying and generous support only began after he acquired his business interest in opposing pipelines.
The choice remains, which is safer and better for the environment ; Pipeline or Rail rolling stock.
Obviously, every study comes down in favour of pipelines. The incidents occurring in shipping oil by rail are numerous and it’s obviously disadvantageoues.
But then again, maybe that’s the strategy behind the opposition ? There seems to be the fantasy that if oil is shipped by rail, and causes enough problems, this will miraculously aliviate the need for oil !
Marco, I understand the logic as far as it goes but it seems a bit bizarre. It seems as if you
1. start with the definition that oil must travel by pipeline or Rail and then further postulate that
2. “the world runs on oil”
3. Therefore someone must support one or the other.
If this is not specious enough you go on with the
1. Assertion that Warren Buffet invests in rail transport of oil.
2. Warren Buffet supports the Democratic party
3 Therefore Craig must support rail transport of oil.
Leaving me sort of scratching my head wondering if everyone went to the same school of logic that I remember.
Railroads represent existing infrastructure and not a negation of an industry by itself, just perhaps a limitation.
This pipeline represents new infrastructure and an expansion of the flow of oil by about 1/3 over existing pipelines and rail. It also suggests additional international markets and may represent additional risk to new areas.
No Marco, you have hugely missed the point. Just because oil is generally transported to refineries over land in two ways does not by any logic mean that someone must choose or like either one.
The title of the article is not “Hey, lets put more oil on trains” Perhaps you could have one clue from the line, “Phasing out fossil fuels needs to start somewhere.”
“Oil is an essential product…” you say. That is true … until it is not. And when will it not be true. According you your logic it will be after we build alternative infrastructure we don’t have any present need for or want. Yea right, that makes a lot of sense….
No, it is going to be people who change first. Some thought it would be when we discovered oil was polluting and dirty and was hurting our health. no
Some thought it would be when we had alternative means of transportation, and we would simply flock to electric cars, no again.
But now a new PV power plant has been built in the Middle east that is cheaper than natural gas. And that has shocked the world energy system to its core. Oil will stop being an essential product when its cost is undercut by renewable energy. On this video you will hear people comparing the price to $10/barrel oil. It’s shocking and the world is just beginning to feel the repercussions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyrbKBZ6SU
Breath,
Thank you for your reply, it’s a terrific example of the sort of refusal to accept reality so prevalent among less realistic environmental advocates.
When reality doesn’t suit what you believe reality should be, you simply invent a fantasy future world, and ignore the difficult decisions needed in the real world.
In the real world, there are only two choices, Rail or pipeline !
There is no alternative mysterious future where oil won’t be needed. (at least not for many decades).
If this event should occur, then the pipelines would no longer be necessary and be eventually scrapped or converted to other uses.
But here and now, we are confronted with a real choice. Rail or Pipeline !
“Phasing out fossil fuels needs to start somewhere.” This can only occur when a viable alternative is available. So far that hasn’t occurred ! Your argument really should be put as “Let’s pretend an alternative exists, and not build pipelines because we can pretend we don’t need safer more environmentally beneficial oil infrastructure. Oh, and so Warren Buffett can make even more more money shipping oil dangerously”.
I have absolutely no idea how a solar plant in Saudi Arabia will persuade a Fire Brigade in Minnesota to not use gasoline or diesel, or even how it will persuade environmentalists like Craig or yourself, to stop using diesel/gasoline or any of the other 350,000 products produced by oil! (nor, I suspect, do you!)
So,..back to the real world. Do you really imagine that anyone is going to say, “Oh my goodness, no pipeline, well I’d better start phasing out my use of oil !” ? Or can you accept that you will just drive up to the pump, secure in the knowledge that you have adequate supply? All you have done by opposing pipelines is achieve a useless symbolic gesture at expense of the environment, and public safety.
( But, if you are a Warren Buffet investor, or a Democrat candidate or supporter, it makes sense!).
Breath, you wrote, “…. Just because oil is generally transported to refineries over land in two ways does not by any logic mean that someone must choose or like either one.”.
Quite true; I fully agree that there is no reason that either one must be chosen or liked. However, looking at it realistically, it is almost certain that in actual fact, one or the other WILL be chosen. Considering that, surely it would be better to choose the lesser of two evils which is the pipeline because pipeline transportation is safer than rail transportation.
OK Frank, I appreciate what I take as your hypothetical. If I were in the position of a rich oil executive and somehow I also had a conscience (it is a hypothetical) and I was looking at the question of shipping my product by rail or by pipe there could be several factors that I should take into consideration.
– a study says that the safety record of shipping by pipeline is safer than shipping by rail. But what does this mean?
— Do I have an existing pipeline or will I have to install new infrastructure.
— If it is new infrastructure will I have to use eminent domain to essentially steal the private land of individual people to creat profits for my multi-national corporation? I can do it but what will that do to the PR for my company?
— what kind of upheaval will the new construction involve, who will object, what are their claims?
Just what does it mean when we say pipelines are safer? This also has a number of parameters. Are we talking about lives lost, dollars lost, pollution incidents, pollution amounts, reason would suggest that pipeline spills would tend to be both consistently smaller and potentially much greater than rail losses where essentially the pipeline is cut into lots of smaller pieces.
Rail represents a route that typically has an existing right of way surrounding it. There is a setback and often fences. This might be compared to pipelines.
Now, I’ll show you how I work. I have my armchair initial list of questions and do a search to find this among others: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/15/pipeline-oil-transport-safety-fraser-institute_n_4101362.html This gives me a couple of things. First it gives me the name of the often referenced study, and it tells me that in this case “safety” is defined by “worker accidents” and number of “incidents involving spills” Pipeline spills tend to be larger but caught more quickly. Above all environmental impact is unclear.
But you can never be satisfied with a reporters report of a study. Before you put your name to a review you want to check the study itself. I would give this article a negative mark because it does not cite the original study in a way that allows me to look their quickly.
No matter modifying the search gets me to this PDF: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/safety-in-the-transportation-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail-rev2.pdf and this is where the work begins:
Now there is a second list of observations and questions:
This is a Canadian research company. What is their data set? What is the location, size of the set, time period? What is the relevancy to my considerations?
The study references a US study that was a head to head comparison that this study was not. As I read through the study I am especially looking for assumptions, averages, generalizations, definitions that could wildly change the interpretation.
Here is a briefing for another study. This time in the US: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/pipelines-are-safest-transportation-oil-and-gas-5716.html …. and so on.
Interestingly both studies include transport by road, which again brings into question the size of the study.
So this was a very brief research project but it gives some idea that initial questions are never so simple. “Safety” is no where intended to mean “environmentally sound or secure” Mostly it refers to worker safety. So I might the studies useful or fairly useless.
Taking off my oil company hypothetical hat and looking just as an environmental researcher I might tend to notice how often such studies have been quoted and wonder if they are being used to promote pipelines for their environmental safety when it is a completely inappropriate application. These studies never used environmental impact data sets. Therefore their conclusions can’t include that assessment.
One curious fact that might be compared is if the cost of a new pipeline is justified because it is “safer.” We could divide the cost of the new pipeline by the number of “incidents avoided” to get a cost per incident avoided. We may find that we are paying many millions of dollars to avoid a barrel of oil spilled and sprained wrist while allowing oil executives a cheaper pathway to international markets. In this case some might suggest we have been scammed. But at this point it is only another question for further research.
Marco, you are like the playground bully who says do you want a punch in the face or a kick in the shins. I am sorry, no amount of insults are going to encourage me to play your game. No amount of bullying is going to make it any more enticing.
You’ve tried and failed to put a strange, self serving twist on the initial article and because I refuse your version of pretend reality you have quickly decided that I “lack reality.”
Here is a reality check. When all the comments on this article are finished no one will be shipping any oil, by pipe or by rail. That probably is a big shock to your play world but it is true. You seem to think you are in some board room making command decisions. Get a grip. Calm down, the world is not about to end, the sky is not falling and the article was never about the best way to ship oil which you seem to keep pushing beyond any sense of reason.
You are going on and on about “the world needs oil, the world needs oil” … see how that sounds like the ravings of chicken little, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling…” As I said in my last comment, the world needs oil, until it doesn’t.
You seem to think some parent in the sky is going to come along and give us alternative energy power plants, non polluting cars and infrastructure fully formed and then say, “now boys and girls you can switch from oil.” You are trying to say until all this is in place many decades from now, (which sounds an awful like in a land far far away…”) only then can we switch from oil.
But no, you can hold on to your oil stocks with your death grip. You can listen to oil companies telling the world that solar energy is decades away and far too costly and too difficult to implement. And then the price of new solar energy is less than the price of electricity powered by natural gas. And then the world is saying we don’t need oil, how can we get rid of this dirty polluting thing that has bullied us for decades past. And that is not some tree hugging environmentalist. That is the bankers, investment funds and the people who formerly loved oil stocks. And just like that the world’s best friend becomes a hated enemy. And then the oil stocks in your hand might just as well be TP.
This isn’t my reality, this isn’t my script. This is the script of the cite I provided to you. If you are too myopic in your ravings to take notice, too intent on your bullying attitude that you can’t listen or read, I can only say that I tried to help, but you only wanted to hear yourself talk. Enjoy the TP.
Breath,
Well I’m impressed ! It’s not often I read nearly 1400 words of such erudite prose dedicated to proving black is really white !
Well done! Your reply to Frank was astonishingly well constructed, considering the difficulty of supporting such a bizarre concept as shipping oil in volume by rail in the USA is less risky than by using a carefully constructed, monitored and well maintained pipeline ! For such an almost indefensible proposition, I congratulate you on a valiant effort.
Some of your comments baffle me, eg: “When all the comments on this article are finished no one will be shipping any oil, by pipe or by rail.” ???
Er, maybe I’m wrong, maybe some cataclysmic event has occurred in the USA of which I’m as yet unaware, but the last time I looked oil was being shipped across the US, in huge quantities, on a daily basis! I think they’ll still be shipping the long after our discourse has concluded !
Breath, for the last 20 years I have financed and been actively involved in promoting the interests of a small, but viable, specialist manufacturer of EV vehicles. Over the years we’ve also been involved in selling, servicing and promoting EV’s.(more than 10,000)
I was one of the first owners of a fully functioning 4 door production EV. (Blade Electron). For the last four years, I’ve also been the proud owner of an LERR, which is probably the first successful modern long range EV.
I’m a very early adopter of EV technology. I’ve just ordered our third Tesla S as BMW 7 series fleet replacements. I own (and am in the process of restoring) over 47 historic and classic electric
vehicles.
I certainly don’t profess to be the ultimate authority, nor are EV’s my core business, but over the years gained just a little knowledge of the potential and problems of EV adoption. Along the way, I think I’ve gained just a little knowledge concerning the limitations and potential of alternate energy technologies.
My knowledge has been acquired the hard way. If I’m wrong it costs me and my investors money ! I can’t afford the luxury of idealistic fantasies.
I think we all want,and dream of a future where diesel and gasoline are fuels of the past, and where the oil industry can concentrate on more beneficial products.
But just wanting something to be true, even if you think it really should be true, doesn’t mean it is true !
The problem I have with overly optimistic advocates like yourself, is that you prevent smaller, more humble environmental improvements.
It’s an old saying but still valid, “the ‘Perfect’ should never be made the enemy of the merely ‘good’ “.
As for the relevance of “Pipeline v Rail”, that’s actually the crux of Frank’s position. In opposing Frank’s viewpoint,Craig opines that preventing the construction of pipeline will deter the use of oil.
Craig’s opinion might be valid if a ‘replacement’ for oil existed, but since no alternative exists, Frank’s opinion that it’s a choice of Pipeline v Rail, is perfectly valid.
Craig’s argument that a future development may provide an oil replacement so safer transport infrastructure today is unnecessary, even undesirable, could be interpreted as impractical, irresponsible and unrealistically idealistic.
Breath, I’m sorry if I appear overbearing or discourteous, it isn’t my intention, but after twenty years in the EV business, I get a little excited when someone tells me that technology able to power a 30 ton fire tender at 80 mph over 100 miles (and all gradients) and still provide power to pump water for hours, is “just around the corner” !
I’ll hope you’ll forgive me if I wonder about the relevance of a solar plant in Saudi Arabia to the problems of propelling a 3 ton ambulance at 80 mph over gradients along the snow bound roads of Minnesota ?
The technology doesn’t exist. No one (well no one sensible) can prophesy when such technology may exist.
EV ESD capacity has reached the limitations of current battery technology. There will be continuing improvements, but mostly predictably incremental.
In time an ESD breakthrough may occur, (and since no one can predict the eventuality of such a breakthrough, it’s fairly safe to assume EV adoption will sadly remain limited to under 5% for at least two more decades.
As for oil shares, the only thing affecting the price, is too much oil ! 🙂
Marco, my comments were a response to Frank, I didn’t expect you to be able understand the subtle difference in perspective. Please try and understand comments I specifically refer to you first. The very fact that you would refer to a “stream of consciousness, writing in real time following the decision process as “well constructed” or “erudite” is a bit juvenile.
I very sorry, I presumed you could follow the argument. You have been insisting (like a playground bully) that we must choose between rail or pipe for the transport of oil. This is the perspective of someone who must make these decisions. I wouldn’t say to a child, “shall we buy more groceries or pay the mortgage. They certainly would not understand the subtleties of the question and the answer would tend to be nothing more than cute.
So I will say again, “Here is a reality check. When all the comments on this article are finished no one will be shipping any oil, by pipe or by rail.” That “no one” refers to those making “the comment.” Which directly refers to my having to make a decision that could be nothing more than cute if I did not appreciate the details. The response to Frank was a hypothetical because most people don’t (and don’t want to) seriously consider the details. When you do examine the details this is what a responsible person who takes the time to examine the question details seriously should do. I didn’t anticipate the result when I started and the analysis is only the very briefest beginning. I think even such detail is too much for you. Let it go.
Marco, when you feel threatened your comments constantly jump back to how many cars you own and how many very important decisions you have made and how much knowledge you possess. (A bit like someone in the news who is telling us that he is really rich.) That might be true or you could be making it all up. What I see are only the comments here (for which we tend to give some benefit of doubt.)
Regardless, all your money, cars, or knowledge are only so good as the opinions in this moment. At the first letter, what you have to say is no more valuable than the potential comment of someone who only reads these words, and has no cars, no business dealings and has never made a comment. No doubt you have many fine qualities. Appreciating perspective and subtlety does not seem to be a major part of your repertoire. There is a glaring difference in both perspective and subtlety between your comments here and the original article. It sadly part of human nature to condemn what we don’t understand.
You dive back to your ownership of electric cars etc… as some kind of environmental bona fida after making demanding and bullying statements that look and feel exactly like something that could be coming from the board room of Exxon-Mobil. So you will have to forgive anyone who says if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck …. (it’s not a rabbit.)
Breath,
Breath,
I’m sorry you feel my comments are those of a ‘bully’. That is not my intention, I have no wish to be intimidating, but we are all responsible for the reaction we provoke in others.
In my last post I simply tried to provide an insight into my experiences and the reasons for my conclusions. We are all the products of our life experiences and backgrounds. My illustrations from my own like were not intended as an exercise in self-aggrandizement, but information to help you understand that I’m talking from some experience.
It’s true I have a degree of affinity with the directors of corporations like Exxon etc, since as part of my profession, I make it my business to understand their thinking, responsibilities and pressures.
These people carry immense responsibility for the well being, livelihoods and even lives, not only for their employees and shareholders, but sometimes the economic welfare of whole nations. Each day they wrestle with far more complex decisions and dynamics than leaders of many nations.
In my experience such individuals are neither saints nor sinners. Mostly, like politicians, they’re just people with the same set of human foibles as all humans. The big difference is the decisions they make affects millions of people.
It’s also true I judge any proposition by it’s ability for practical application and implementation. In the same way I expect advocates to easily explain how what they advocate could be implemented, at what cost, and who will bear those costs.
I don’t think this is unreasonable. When I advocate a policy, I expect to supply clear and verifiable information to support every aspect of my proposition. I’m gratified when someone takes the time to scrutinize my advocacy, and grateful for valid criticism.
You are quite correct when you say I don’t appreciate the “subtle difference of perspective”. Just as I remain baffled as to how relevant a solar plant in Saudi Arabia is to a fireman in Minnesota.
The message of Craig’s article was quite clear, very little subtly was involved. The content is unambiguous and easily understood. Craig’s contention is simple, he believes that the prevention of pipeline construction may produce a catalyst for the phasing out of the oil industry.
My contentions is just as simple. I believe preventing pipeline construction in North America will not achieve any reduction in oil usage, just an increase in shipping oil by a far riskier and less environmental method of transport.
Now the test of these two opposing propositions should be whether or not any reduction of oil usage can be reasonably verified as a result of be preventing pipeline construction and increased transport by rail.
Not very subtle I’ll concede, but very much to the point.
If Craig, or yourself, can establish that any reduction in the demand for oil achieved by preventing pipeline construction, I’m eager to listen and would certainly support such a move.
If not, then it’s not “bullying” to point out the prevention of a safer method of transport in favour of an idealistic fantasy is irresponsible.
Breath, if I sound like a “corporate executive”, well,.. that’s because I am a corporate executive! That doesn’t mean I don’t have an environmental conscience, just that I want to see positive achievements and less empty symbolism and vague idealism.
But as I say, it wasn’t my intention to be discourteous, simply robust !
Some of these posts have degenerated into personal attacks. I hope that that will stop forthwith, but I am not so naïve as to expect it to.
Frank in a world where information is constantly received and weigh each new tidbit that comes to us there must be changing perspectives. The last few days have been like this.
At your prompting I that looked more closely into PHES for its energy storage potential. The claims that it would use about 1/300 the land area of pumped hydro seem confirmed. Efficiency equal to hydro seems to depend upon a very efficient heat engine, in this case, operating on an Ericsson thermodynamic cycle. Such engines have not so far demonstrated the efficiency required so the overall efficiency is reasonably suspect. This may not be enough to entirely kill the idea. Being able to only sell 30 to 50% of what is purchased is not so favorable as 70% but if peak vs off peak pricing more than overcame this then it may still be economically viable.
On another front, in the last few days I have reviewed several climate change predictions. One suggested that it would take 50 to 60 years to completely decommission a present day nuclear power plant if there is sufficient money. The NY area ratepayers are now subsidizing the Indian Point power plant to the tune of billions of dollars. The same author went on to suggest that in addition to lack of money we do not have the time because reduction of Co2 is not going to be sufficient to head off the methane bomb being released by even the present global warming. What is more, he was concerned that any of the world’s nuclear plants if abandoned by design or circumstances could lead to effects demonstrated in Fukushima. This is not the time or place to continue the discussion but I just wanted to pass along that I have heard what you are saying.
For decades, nuclear power stagnated. That seems to have changed, and it’s about time. Although there is no proof, it seems clear that far superior nuclear technologies are possible. Our current nuclear technology, from a number of standpoints, leaves much to be desired. Continually pointing out the problems with it surely will motivate efforts to eliminate the problems. Imagine what cars would be like if R & D for them had been halted in 1915.
We cannot be sure what the effects of global warming will be. As you implied, they could be far worse than generally assumed especially if CH4 emissions increase as the result of CO2 increased warming. Then there is speculation that excessive warming could set in motion a chain of events resulting in the release of toxic amounts of H2S.
The one scenario that concerns me is if brilliant powers decide that global warming is real, no amount of co2 reduction will prevent a runaway greenhouse effect and the only possible course is Geo-engineering. This effectively means blocking the sun (by any of several methods.) Not only would this reduce the available energy to “fuel” global warming but it would certainly have an effect on the growth of food supplies … and all the sources of renewable energy that depend directly or indirectly on the sun including: hydro, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, bio-mass, and ground source heat pump geothermal. The things this would not affect would be other than Solar based energy: volcanic geothermal, tidal and nuclear energy in all its forms.
Our present level of Geo-engineering has given us global warming. We are constantly hearing about one more effect this will have on the world. Geo-engineering to “correct” the problem is also likely to have unforeseen consequences. I certainly hope it will not come to this. But there is a list of scientists who have moved from the “reduce CO2 camp” to one saying “it is already too late.”
A thorium reactor has been built in the US, (experimental in the 60’s) so we know it is possible. The question is what it will cost in dollars, time, political wrangling, subsidies, further research and development, and what are the alternatives with which it must compete. While nuclear has more support in the scientific community and military it has suffered a great deal of bad press. It would take something to overcome that negative. Beyond this I would just be repeating many of the same negative arguments that have been mentioned previously. In the US nuclear represents about 20% of the grid.
There are many questions about thorium reactors and there is more than one way to use thorium in a reactor. The Indians plan to use thorium in reactors similar to our pressurized water uranium reactors. The prototype thorium reactor in the 1960s was a subset of the metallic salt reactor, i.e, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). Despite some potential problems, to me it looks like the most promising reactor type yet devised. It looks as though it could circumvent most of the problems associated with our current pressurized water uranium reactors (PWR).
However, as the adage goes, it would be a mistake to put all our eggs into one basket. Therefore, R & D should be done on a variety of reactor types until we can be sure that we have identified the best ones; it may be that more than one type should be used depending on circumstances. We have already made the mistake of choosing a reactor type prematurely, i.e., the PWR. It must not happen again!
My understanding is that the PWR was specifically chosen for development first due to its military use in submarines and then because the military wanted the “spent fuel” to make bombs.
As I was traveling, I once found myself sitting next to an aid to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover ( http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/subsbeforenuc/revolution/father.html ) We had a very interesting conversation for over an hour. One of the proposals he discussed was taking all the mothballed nuclear submarines (at the time there were 5) and parking them off of coastal cities and then using them to supply electricity. It was an interesting proposal and it could be a way to very quickly supply more base load power, though I have no idea of the practicalities of such a play nor how much power could be supplied.
Some of the nuclear submarines were like series hybrids where the reactor only produced electricity. And the ship used electric motors. (earliest ones) Others were more like parallel hybrids with the reactor also providing, through a turbine direct mechanical force. Such a ship would have to be adapted.
I don’t know enough about nuclear submarines to know whether that would be practical.
Presumably the subs used to provide power to cities would be the ones which use electric drive. But to make the motors and generators as small as possible, I would expect them to use a frequency higher than 60 Hz, perhaps 400 Hz, which is what much military equipment uses. That would require changing the 400 Hz to 60 Hz, which can be done, but it would add extra cost and complication.
There would be a number of practical questions to address.
This just out today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYegV36NEwU “There is no reason to build the DAPL”