Right now California has one of the highest electricity costs in the nation due to our mandates on renewable energy. While renewable sources such as wind and solar are a way to generate electricity, they are very bad at doing it.
The argument for them is that once constructed the photo-voltaic cells and wind turbines will “naturally produce energy”. Unfortunately this is untrue. Not only do they have extremely high production costs, when measured against their energy generation, but they also require a large amount of maintenance.
Solar Panels must be regularly cleaned or they lose efficiency and trees around them need to be removed or constantly maintained to ensure no shade covers the panels, wind turbines have to be serviced regularly to make sure they aren’t spinning too fast, or building up too much friction. And, of course, when the sun is not out, solar will not work, and when the wind is not blowing at a minimum of 10 miles per hour most Wind Turbines wont spin at all.
In addition most Wind Turbines won’t hit their optimum power output until the wind is blowing at a constant of over 30 miles per hour. We have an energy crisis brewing in California and to curb this we should be looking not to renewable, but sustainable, energy sources -yes they are different.
It would be very easy for us to accomplish this by taking our 2 decommissioned nuclear power plants (San Onofre and Rancho Seco) and retrofitting them to operate as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) Plants. Right now they are sitting dormant when they could be producing more electricity than ever before, safer, cleaner, more reliable, and most importantly, sustainable while at the same time cheaper than Coal. A side benefit to LFTR Technology, is that it could desalinate millions of gallons of Seawater for use throughout the State of California. I never thought that when I moved to California, I would be suggesting by far, the best, and most affordable plan to solve the State’s long term Water crisis. Yet, here it is.
Miller is running for the California Assembly District 11 seat, currently held by Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley. He is running on a platform freezing increases on Property and Business Taxes, Regulatory Agency Reform within State Government, Reduction in Salary for State Elected Officials, School Reform, Drought Relief, LFTR Implementation, and Comprehensive Prison Reform, which differs from Governor Brown’s ‘soft’ plan, as the Governor’s plan doesn’t address Prisoner Perks.
For more information, visit: www.electdavemiller.com
10 comments
Is this a joke. This is not any sort of solution. This is talking point.
It’s no joke….LFTR technology has been around since the 1970’s and a proven system tested at Tennessee’state Oak Ridge Labs. check out my website at http://www.electdavemiller.com
I’m excited about the prospect of developing LFTR in the US. Which organizations do you have in mind to start the retrofitting?
If LFTR is such a viable technology, why have the only prototype reactors in the US been shut down for 40 years? I suspect the only reason LFTR is gaining interest is because of expensive oil prices. They may not have the same dangers as a typical fission reactor, but you still have radioactive waste to deal with.
If you really want to push for better energy tech, spend the money on fusion research. The main byproduct there would be helium; maybe we would then see blimps in the air more frequently.
Practical Fusion is still decades away from being able to support our needs. LFTR is much more efficient that previous reactors, and only 17% of its waste products are radioactive, and that’s only for about 350 years! Quite the improvement over older systems.
Efficient Fision is the key to reversing carbon output from Coal and natural gas plants, and we can do it RIGHT NOW, as oposed to 2050.
*than
Sorry, meant to say that 17% of RADIOACTIVE waste is radioactive for 350 years. The other 83% takes about 10 years to decay.
Because of the liquid material in LFTRs reactor, it is a much more efficient and cost effective power source than current reactors that use solid metal fuel rods.
LFTR is not a viable alternative. It’s also not new. If it were indeed a cost effective and efficient replacement for traditional nuclear it would have take off already.
Not one mention of costs of this proposed retrofit or whether it’s even possible to retrofit existing facilities. From a marketing standpoint, good luck selling the public on the idea that you’re going to desal water for their consumption by running it through a nuclear facility.
Germany, a high northern latitude country, has 39,698 megawatts of installed solar at the end of 2015(according to wiki) which is the equivalent of 13 times the annual production capacity of San Onofre and Rancho Seco nuclear power plants combined. Without all that nagging risk to public safety and a waste byproduct that is dangerous to public health for hundreds of thousands of years. Funny, with all the negatives Miller wants to throw at solar somehow Germany has been making it work for 25 years now. Germany has a geographic size only 85% of that of California. So if they can do it, why can’t we?
This was a DUMB hit piece on renewables with absolutely no supportive data. Saying dirty panels are a problem is like saying hydroelectric is impractical because you can’t be dumping water out of lakes 24/7 to generate.
Joe Abbess, an industry analyst, called the thorium reactor movement “quite probably the most well-funded piece of astroturfing propaganda in existence”
I see the Koch Bros in the news today are going to “invest” $10M into lobbying to kill the burgeoning electric car industry. Can’t have people crowding your $115B company with deep roots in fossil fuels. .
You going to carry water for that idea too, Mr. Miller?
You seem to have a lot to say about solar, but do you honestly think that it’s a viable replacement for burning fossil fuels? Germany’s solar arrays, even with 25 years of development, only produced “6.2 to 6.9%” of the country’s net energy. Say they were to scale that up? Then what?
And the Koch brothers? Really? And what does Jo Abbess know about LFTR? Did you even read through the group discussion linked in her blog? There is overwhelming support for development of LFTR, and only minor objections based on the augment that LFTR isn’t the only solution. OF COURSE IT’S NOT! It’s only a SIGNIFICANTLY more practical alternative to FFs than modern Renews.
Solar kwh production cost eclipsed coal produced power sometime back. Large scale commercial solar can now produce electricity cheaper than natural gas. So yes, it’s a viable alternative.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060023749
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
That’s 20% of the current production coming from renewables.
Go ahead and try to get elected in California with the dinosaur mindset. You’ll go nowhere.
Just getting folks to talk about safe alternatives, to our states water and power grid solutions is a step in the right direction!! https://youtu.be/97GtL98kmPA
Comments are closed.