Let's be clear here - Barry Brook is not a nuclear physicist - he is an activist supporting what he sees as a solution to the world's electricity generation and climate change problem. However, you only need to visit Barry Brook's Brave New Climate website to find material that refutes the passionate optimism of IFR's supporters.I put some excerpts below from this URL:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/14/fast-reactor-future/

"A retired, “Pioneer”, Leonard Koch is probably the oldest continuing supporter and participant in the development of the original concept of nuclear power. He joined Argonne National Laboratory in early 1948 and....

Below are quotes from a speech in IFRs by Koch:

"Could nuclear fuel be recycled through such reactors in the manner required to extract the energy?...

"The third question [above] has not been answered adequately. Nuclear fuel has not been recycled to the extent necessary to demonstrate the capability to extract a significant fraction of the energy contained in uranium! This is the remaining challenge for science and technology....

"Each future recycle system will create unique requirements related specifically to the fuel, the fuel form and the design of the individual fuel elements. They will include removing the spent fuel from its container; (most probably a cylindrical tube), reprocessing the fuel and installing it in a new container.

"It is this part of the total fuel recycle process that requires much development and demonstration. There are a variety of potential fuels and fuel forms and a variety of potential purification and fabrication processes which will produce a variety of fuel recycle characteristics and requirements . The composition of the fuel will change during recycle and an equilibrium, or near equilibrium, composition will eventually result. This scenario has not been produced for any of the potential fuel systems, nor will it be, until the required operational experience has been obtained. Global attention is needed because this will be a very slow, long-term undertaking. There are no quick fixes! (continued)

(continued) "A fuel cycle will probably take about three years, and several cycles will be required to establish a reasonable demonstration of the total performance of a specific recycle process. There will be, almost certainly, more than one total fuel recycle system to pursue; possibly several. Each will be unique and produce its own results and create its own requirements."

Now does that sound like a technology that is ready to save the world to you? I don't think so! The world is already slipping into financial chaos as we slide down the net energy curve. There will never be the money or time for this sort of development.

And tell me anyhow - when a big reactive sodium fire does, eventually, begin at one of these theoretical IFR plants (because of an earthquake, a mechanical failure or even a terrorist attack), how are you going to put it out? It will burn and burn all the while spewing highly radioactive particles over anything downwind.

IFRs are just a fantasy for techno-optimists and, fortunately, that is all they will ever be.

Ben,

Given that nuclear power is the safest form of power generation, the anti nuke lobby are fighting a rearguard action against the last pillar of protest, i.e. what to do with the waste. Reprocessing has been successfully done in France and Japan, and the re enrichment of spent fuel and the IFR which will dispose of the majority of the waste will rob them of all but their scare campaigns.

The choice that AGW campaigners are faced with is that the alternative to nuclear power, in the absence of viable "renewable" alternatives, is to continue burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate.

michael-in-adelaide I hope you realise the batteries in your Tindo solar powered bus have liquid sodium surrounding the negative plates. A simple prang could bring your much feared sodium fire closer than you think.

As far as wind and solar are concerned Adelaide is giving us a peak into the future with the world's highest electricity prices on Sunday week. In reality that wind and solar is only possible because gas takes up the slack. What happens when gas runs out? I think we can assume that will effectively be the case within the lifetime of today's kids. Start thinking of a long run alternative to the IFR and see how much fantasy that will involve.

A sodium fire is one thing. A radioactive sodium fire is another thing altogether! How do you put it out? And the scale of the fire is orders of magnitude larger than a burning bus!

Taswegian - I have been thinking about what my kids will do as our fossil fuels run out for the past 8 years now. The prospect is terrifying and there are no answers that even come close to being easy. But as you can read above, IFRs are a technology that we no longer have the time or "money" (energy) to develop. So we should stop wasting our time fantasising about them and get one with looking at feasible "solutions" (if any can be described as such).

Besides - it seems to me that IFRs are just being used as a cover to promote the building of more conventional nuclear power plants. But we don't have the time and money for that either - as Finland's experience is showing.

I have no idea where this area of energy production should go in the future.
We do have a very large amount of energy down in those hot rocks.
So far they have run into significant difficulties in getting it to work.
The energy is there, shouldn't we be moving hell & high water to get at it ?

The clock is ticking, the politicians are either not aware of the
energy problem and those that are made aware do not want to know.
They are afraid we might ask them to do something about it.