Harry, can't you get used to the idea that you are going to die anyway?
The chance of it being due to radiation is so small that it can be
ignored. The people living on granite are generally getting far larger
natural radiation doses than those living next to or working in nuclear
power stations. We don't see them whinging.
Quite obviously, LFTR designs which, afair, can be used to 'burn
down' the long lived isotopes to shorter lived ones (half lives of
days to years for the various fission products produced).
Saves me regurgitating all the benefits of this half century old
nuclear power technology. The first paragraph nicely sums it up.
Unlike the Cold War based legacy designs we're currently living with,
essentially no high pressures on the nuclear side of the process (no
need for a large and expensive high pressure containment vessel nor
hydrogen explosion hazard - neatly eliminates Fukushima type
There are plenty of articles on the subject available on the internet
(google or Bing using "LFTR") to provide further reading for anyone
with the slightest interest or concerns over the future of nuclear
<http://energyfromthorium.com/ has a video of an interesting
presentatiion on the subject by Kirk Sorenson
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v GtL98kmPA>
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
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
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
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.
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.
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
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..
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
Maybe forever. Which means the cost of nuclear power is infinitely high.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.