OT True cost of nuclear power.

[bert]

At the same time?

[John Williamson]

I normally define it as less than 1 percent, depending on what is being measured. In some applications, (Washing dishes, for example) 0.1% is too much, and 10% (As in excess air for combustion on the solid fuel stove) may be too little.

[Johny B Good]

I did read it all (and, not for the first time). My comprehension of this section was that it listed the various, surmountable, problems the designers would have to consider to create a fully functioning and _safe_ LFTR.

A lot of such problems being ones that had been overlooked/ignored in the current crop of LWR designs which lead to the need to store considerable amounts of high and low level radioactive wastes as a result of the higher than expected maintenance requirements.

The 'problems' are now being considered in the light of 50 years operational experience with LWR and similar reactor designs so it's not too surprising that the list of problems seems to be so impressively long.

What's encouraging is that there'll be solutions to each and every problem, helped not least by the 40 odd years of materials development in the nuclear power industry and the better understanding of the various risks inherent in _any_ nuclear reactor design.

In essence, yes. The good news is that the LFTR project can now be resumed after a 40 odd year hiatus with the benefit of hindsight gained by operating all those cold war driven designs (which weren't a complete waste of space).

I don't know why you think this is funny. ISTM that you're laughing at others' misfortune (demonic cackling laughter is how that comes over to me).

Burn it down to shorter lived radioactive isotopes in the LFTRs we'll be building by the thousands over the next century. It won't totally eliminate _all_ of the high level waste but, by hell, it'll reduce the size of the problem by an order or two of magnitude thus making safe and expensive disposal a more practical solution.

Your point seems to have been that nuclear energy is a "White Elephant" technology now showing its real operating costs in the form of the necessary decommissioning expenses to the embarrassment of the pro-nuclear politicians.

You seem to forget that the Cold War created a need for some rather pragmatic 'solutions' where such problems were simply 'swept under the carpet' in the hope that improvements in the technolgy would come up with the solution. As it turns out, a fulfilled hope if LFTR technology is allowed to be fully developed and utilised.

The cleanup costs are simply the price being paid for the necessary research required to develop inherently safe nuclear fission power plant technology. It could have been a lot cheaper but for the Cold War placing LFTR 'On Hold' for the last 40 odd years or so.

Just because the Cold War driven designs of the current nuclear power stations have revealed their many safety flaws, this is no reason to dismiss all nuclear fission reactor technology out of hand. LFTR offers a much safer way to meet our ever increasing demand for power in a practical way. Hopefully, long enough for mankind to realise the 'Holy Grail' of "Safe, Clean, Fusion Power" before the Thorium runs out sometime during the next millenium or three.

[Tim Streater]

Which is unsurprising. Only in harry's world do you go from the Wright Brothers to today's jets in one step.

If harry had been around in 1954 or whenever it was, he would be telling us that the Comet crashes "proved" that we shouldn't be using jets or trying to fly above 10,000 feet.

[Johny B Good]

It's funny, but a similar analogy came to mind whilst I was composing my reply. I just couldn't see a succinct way to phrase it at the time so didn't bother. Yours nicely sums it up though. :-)

That's my impression too. I think Harry is what you might call a "Happy Pessimist".

[Tim Streater]

I might call him that. Then again, I might call him something else.

[bert]

In message , Tim Streater writes

Like FIT thief for example?

[harryagain]

Few of the problems have been resolved. Probably because there is no solution. So why proceed and make matters worse? If what you say is true, why is the Hinkley reactor not thorium? Because the technology is far away in the future, if it can work at all. You must be naive to think there will be (once again) no unforseen problems.

The nuclear industry has lied in ther past, and therefore is likely still lying and will lie in the future. So long as they can make money. They don't give a toss, in the end the taxpayer will face the continuing storage/processing bill. Maybe forever. Which means the cost of nuclear power is infinitely high.

[harryagain]

What a stupid comparison. Shows how thick you are. The Wright brothers made their aircraft out of recyclable materials.

We're stuck with poisonous radioactive waste, maybe forever ,with no likely solution in sight..

[harryagain]

If you think that's a good analogy you are as dimwitted as he is.

[harryagain]

So in other words, smaller compared with something else?

[Johny B Good]

And, it took you nearly a week to arrive at this conclusion?

[Jim K]

maybe more inverter problems on the FIT leccy?

Jim K

[John Williamson]

Not if you read what I wrote.

What is *your* definition of tiny?

[Johny B Good]

Maybe, but it's given him plenty of time to 'mull things over'.

[harryagain]

Insignificant. Of small physical dimensions. Less than the norm. But always relative.

[John Williamson]

So, you would not normally consider 10% to be a tiny proportion, then?