The Hargraves comment finishes;
The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics are collaborating with nuclear engineering experts at UC Berkeley, MIT, and U Wisconsin, especially with regard to safety assessment and licensing. One of the two 2 MW research reactors will be a molten salt cooled pebble bed reactor similar to the PB-AHTR design conceived at UC Berkeley. China already has capabilities to manufacture TRISO fuel pebbles such as used in their HTR-10 experimental reactor and Rongcheng pilot plant.
The university collaborators will develop independent models to predict the neutrons and thermal hydraulic behavior of the CAS reactor design such as reactivity, fuel and coolant temperatures. temperature reactivity feedback, and shutdown control rods. US students may spend time as interns at the CAS, where they may construct molten salt flow loops for materials testing.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences and the US Department of Energy have a Nuclear Energy Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding, with executive committee co-chairs Mianheng Jiang and Pete Lyons, DOE undersecretary for nuclear energy. Participants include scientists from INL, MIT, UC Berkeley, and ORNL.
The CAS and SIAP are hosting the 4th annual International Thorium Energy Organization conference, in Shanghai, October 29 to November 1, 2012.
The Theo announcement states:
China is taking the lead in exploring fresh approaches to nuclear fission in its quest for sustainable, environment- responsible energy that can be delivered reliably and in quantity. The Chinese initiated action to find viable energy sources significant enough to wean the country off its dependence on carbon-based energy. The large amounts of thorium being produced as a by-product of China's rare earth mining operations is a further incentive.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says in a government report published on March 5, 2012, that China will accelerate the use of new-energy sources such as nuclear energy and put an end to blind expansion in industries such as solar energy and wind power.

Peter, renewables are certainly sustainable, giving a positive energy return even in cloudy Germany. In the article you linked to, John Morgan's arbitrary requirement of an EROEI of seven fails to take into account that it's investment of human effort, not energy, that's the limiting factor in what we're able to do.

Nuclear certainly has its advantages, but in sunny Australia they're unlikely to translate to an economic advantage for nuclear, at least until the population's much higher.

I would have expected that a Nuclear Free Campaigner would have a better understanding of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Apparently not.

1. The deal between the US and Russia to disarm nuclear weapons and divert nuclear materials for nuclear energy means FEWER nuclear weapons and MORE fuel for nuclear energy. The opposite of what the author said.

2. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report is written by a disparate group of consultants and has nothing to do with the World Nuclear Industry per se. The material comparing nuclear power with renewable energy makes erroneous comparisons between installed capacities. And the claim that "Increased Renewables Generation Entailing Lower Power Prices" does not seem to be supported by Germany's high electricity costs compared to France. The claim that "The report projects a long term decline in the number of reactors after 2020" lacks credibility when compared to the World Nuclear Association reports http://www.world-nuclear.org/.

3. It is unclear on the author's view on the need to reduce GHG emissions, but most of the industrial world recognises that nuclear power is an essential part of the energy mix if we are to reach the reductions needed. The uranium industry has every reason to be optimistic about it's future.

Gotta love the way all the nuke proponents just ignore or brush aside the "elephant in the room", all the inherent dangers associated with every aspect of their pet, let alone the long-term problems and dangers/costs of disposal of the leftovers.
I'm not looking to discuss them either, they've been exposed often enough that if you cannot see or admit them already then nothing I say will make a skerrick of difference, will it?

Too, there isn't a single reactor anywhere that isn't heavily subsidised by the relevant Gov', usually hidden in a blizzard of paperwork, that's what supports their dodgy "profitability" or "cheap power".

Tombee, Peter Lang and Foyle; it makes a very pleasant change to read posts from the erudite and informed, as opposed to Ideologues, who patently aren't!
For mine, we need to just drop the tired old patent predilection for endless political posturing, postulating, prevaricating and promulgated prognostications, and replace all that proscribed polymerizing purple puke, (the government has no business in business) with bipartisan pragmatism and just get on with it.
A house divided is the only one that cannot stand! (And given divide and rule is the order of the day!)
And that is what we have here, and fed on a diet of exploited fear and ignorance; coupled to thespian theatre and political expediency; and dare one suggest, quite massive shareholdings in the fossil fuel industry? (Family, friends, family trusts?)
No not all our prevaricating pompous popinjay pollies are portly Clive Palmers, with controlling ownership of coal/fossil fuel interests!
But you'd be forgiven for believing too many are; based solely on current outcomes!
30% of us understand politics; another 30% economics, with all elections invariably decided by the entirely ignorant 40% who understand neither, let alone very basic science.
And when it comes to leadership on these most important energy questions, we'd likely get more common sense from a drovers dog!
At least he would know when it's too dammed hot; as opposed to warm and comfortable frogs being slowly brought to the boil!
Carbon free thorium and carbon neutral biogas would be my first two energy choices, and based solely on vastly better economic outcomes!
Cost matters!
Rhrosty.

Aidan and G'dayBruce,

I suggest you have not considered carefully what you've been reading. I suggest you are not challenging your beliefs by conducting carefully planned research to check the various assertions from different research, researchers, NGO's and other groups, many of whom are pushing agendas. To present a persuasive case you need to understand the requirements of the energy system then provide comparable figures for the options you are comparing. When you do that you find renewables do not stack up as better than nuclear on any of the key requirements. The primary requirements are energy security over the long term, reliability of supply and cost of electricity. Secondary requirements are health and safety and environmental impacts.You need to compare the options on a properly comparable basis: provide comparable figures and justify them. Otherwise it's just meaningless chatter.

Aidan, You do not understand. I suggest you read the source documents linked in John Morgan's post, And review the debate with a view to trying to understand. Don't cherry pick just the comments that support your beliefs. Human energy input is negligible compared with the energy from the various sources compared. It's just a red herring to raise that. Furthermore, EROEI needs to be greater that 14 to sustain a modern society which is more than any of the renewables are capable of. And that's now. Energy consumption per capita will continue to grow. So renewables are unsustainable, as I said.

G'dayBruce, You have a closed mind as your comment makes clear. You don't even want to consider you could be wrong, let alone conduct research that challenges the material that has persuaded you to believe as you do.

For decades the authoritative analyses have demonstrated that nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity. That fact alone refutes much of your anti-nuke beliefs. And the subsidies are many times higher for renewables than nuclear on a per energy supplied basis.

.