In my book Mass Delusions, the opening chapter focuses on energy—how much exists, how much we need, and the possible paths to get there. The conclusion is clear: if civilization is to endure for the whole human family, our long-term future must rely on nuclear energy.
But what kind of nuclear energy? There isn’t much uranium-235 available from mining. That’s why we must ultimately turn to breeding. Breeding is a remarkable process that produces fuel for thermal nuclear reactors.
It starts with a naturally occurring element like thorium, which is bombarded with neutrons to create a usable fuel: uranium-233. Modern alchemy at work—a modern example of humanity’s long fascination with turning scarcity into abundance.
The idea of creating something vital out of scarcity is hardly new; religious traditions have dreamed of it for thousands of years.
In Judaism, Hanukkah tells of a single jar of sacramental oil that burned for eight days. In Christianity, there is the parable of Jesus feeding the multitudes with five loaves of bread and two fish.
Both examples reflect humanity’s long-standing desire to turn scarcity into abundance.
Fusion breeding may be able to achieve this as well. Returning to breeding, there are several approaches through both fission and fusion. This section offers only a brief introduction to the concept of fusion breeding. The physics is straightforward, and a motivated high school student with a basic physics course should be able to follow nearly all of it.
Second, there is the climate dilemma. The idea has taken hold—at least in the Western world—that we are on the cusp of a climate crisis caused by burning fossil fuels, which release CO2 into the atmosphere.
According to numerous UN documents, the global temperature increase must be kept below 1.5°C above the preindustrial level, or catastrophe will follow.
But the temperature has already risen by more than 1°C. If the warnings were true, we should already be seeing serious trouble. Instead, by nearly every measure—environmental and human—life is far better today than it was in 1910, when the world was cooler by about a degree.
That alone should make us question whether another half-degree of warming could really bring catastrophe.
Believers insist there is a strong scientific consensus behind the so-called climate crisis. Yet tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists reject this claim. The usual rebuttal is, “Yes, but they are not climate scientists!”
But what exactly is a climate scientist?
Richard Lindzen is one of the world’s leading authorities on geophysical fluid dynamics. Is he not a climate scientist?
William Happer is an expert on how radiation interacts with complex molecules, the very foundation of the greenhouse effect. Is he not a climate scientist?
Bjorn Lomborg, named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, is a leading environmentalist who has written books disputing the climate crisis. Is he not a climate scientist?
In truth, nobody is strictly a “climate scientist.” The science of climate spans physics, chemistry, geology, and engineering—so broad that no one can master more than a small piece of it.
Some of the detailed physics can be complex, but testing the claims and predictions of believers is simple. When tested, the evidence shows there is no climate crisis now, nor one visible on the horizon.
Third, there is the issue of wind and solar power with battery backups. Believers claim these are “clean, reliable, and sustainable” sources of energy, ready to replace coal, oil, and natural gas—or even cheaper than them.
But these claims are false, especially the idea that they are “clean.” In reality, after considering everything, wind and solar are among the dirtiest energy sources, as my book will demonstrate.
Here, too, the physics is straightforward. As with the first section, a motivated high school senior who has taken a physics course should be able to follow nearly all of Section 3—and in doing so, grasp the essential limits of today’s energy debates and other technical arguments.
Top photo by Daniele La Rosa Messina on Unsplash
Wallace Manheimer’s 50-plus career has been as a scientist at the US Naval Research Lab; he is the author of “Mass Delusions: How They Harm Sustainable Energy, Climate Policy, Fusion, and Fusion Breeding.“
A couple points. First, you cannot create and install wind turbines or solar panels without fossil fuels.
Second, the author’s point about Thorium 232->Uranium 233, which is a fissile element, has been proven in a commercial reactor in Colorado years ago. The issue with Uranium is that over 99% of Uranium is U-238 which very seldom fissions. The naturally occurring isotope is U-235 and a typical commercial reactor runs with an enriched U-235 to less than 10% due to the high cost of enriching. This is where “Thorium Reactors” comes in. The only isotope for Thorium is Th-232 (there are several others but the amount of them is almost zero). When bombarded with neutrons it will become Th-233 which through two decays over about 26 days it becomes U-233 which is fissile. Since there is no need for enriching Thorium and Thorium is abundant it becomes an excellent feed stock for a U-233 reactor.
Thank you Steve.. I appreicate the explanation.
Thanks Col. I was afraid I put in too much detail that would put people to sleep!
Great clarification, Steve! Thanks. –CCD Ed.