What is worse than denial? Arguably, deliberately providing counterfeit information?
On one side are climate science denialists, the other, green activists, whose main if un-stated covert goal, is to depopulate and de-industrialise the planet?
What is never contemplated is the pain and suffering of billions, as we get to the place they want? A green planet supporting around a billion, living in complete harmony as hunter gathers/agrarian cultures living in small village communities, supporting a few artisans, who would like potters and or blacksmiths, produce all the articles needed to support such a simple basic lifestyle, replete with a dawn to dust gut bust, just to produce the staples of life?
A family of four would need 5 acres of arable land for their food supply, another eight for each and every cow or horse! Another forty for a renewable self sustaining wood lot! The potters and smiths would need between five or ten times as much?
They would also need very reliable water supplies, supplemented by survival supporting Mildura stills, made possible by traditional glass works. More very large wood-lots!
So, when we run out of the hydrocarbons destroying our world, all we need do is lay back and wait for around 8 or 9 billion people to die? Remember all that hydrocarbon, and or the way it combines in isotopic bonds with the remaining oxygen? Well that would work to foster myriad diseases, we have never heard of or have any developed immunity for? Long before we reach the climate change said to be irreversible, we will see famine and pestilent problems on an entirely unprecedented scale.
A green lifestyle no guarantee of immunity.
Particularly, when the green occupations are done mostly indoors, as relatively well paid professionals?
Who will do the gut bust dawn to dark gut bust needed to survive? The perpetually postulating professors perhaps?
When our forbears walked/crawled out of the primordial swamps, the atmosphere was around 50-51% oxygen? Today its just 21-20%?
Everything we do to simply survive presents with some risk? Not changing over to non polluting power the very highest?
Rhrosty.

I'm in agreement with michael_in_adelaide

Conventional explosion, proliferation and record of lack of commercial interest grounds suggest IFRs as power sources are highly problematic.

The article references to safety are unconvincing and do not account for one in 100 year events. The Fukushima reactors might have been safer than future IFR reactors. IFR reactors experiencing Tsunami, earthquake or terrorist explosion risk extreme fire/explosion hazards if their sodium and water mix.

An IFR may normally require a mix of high proliferation input fuels for economically optimal operation. That is 20+ per cent enriched uranium and separated plutonium. Basically IFR are most efficient in countries that can produce highly enriched uranium and can reprocess plutonium - usually nuclear weapon countries.

These safety-proliferation risks may explain the glacial development since 1984 of IFRs. Why does GE-Hitachi merely propose to build an IFR that is still only of test reactor size (311 MW)? The minimum efficient power reactor size is almost always 1,000+ MW.

Pete

Michael in adelaide, I can but sigh. Having just written about the specificity of IFR technology and the foolishness of treating it generically, that is exactly what you are doing.

Why on earth are you quoting Len Koch to support your assertion of problems with IFR? Koch joined Argonne in 1948. A respected figure to be sure and now he is a member of the Science Council for Global Initiatives, the main body of experts now working to establish IFR as a commercial technology. Barry Brook is also a member. Koch was in the generation of fast reactor development that preceded Till's and Chang's advances.

Having established that you don't even know this much, why should we listen to your fear-mongering on the rest? And while you are busy bagging Barry Brook, exactly who on earth are you to know better?

Pete,

The delay in IFR stems from the fact that the program was terminated in a blatant act of anti-nuclear politics in 1994. You can read about it in Till and Chang's book. The delays continue in part due to misinformation. Which brings me to your comment.

With the initial charge of fuel, which is (you are correct) more highly enriched than fuel for a currently commercial light water reactor, the integrated pyroprocessing facility along with the breeder function of the reactor itself permits the reactors to run with inputs of depleted uranium and other existing high level nuclear waste, which is converted from oxide to metal fuel. This is the whole point of the IFR. It is not contingent on weapons development capability whatsoever, and makes no contribution to any such capability arising.

Your contention that a late '60s design BWR with known and exposed safety limitations is safer than this unpressurised, passive shut down, passive cooled reactor is just bizarre to be frank. Just like a new build LWR today, IFR could be constructed fully quake and airline strike proof.

I think we can trust GE-Hitachi on the economics of their own proposal, as they are asking for nothing up front to build it, and proposing to charge for the electricity sold, and the amount of separated plutonium they process to safer levels.

Good piece guys, well reasoned.

Wauchope and Adelaide are far apart but close in heart - no reason.

An afterthought or footnote.
The Chileans were able to build a very large solar thermal plant, that produced power for less than the current cost of coal-fired power.
The secret of their success, tax free public ownership not required to support shareholding parasites, never ever repaid debt, returning commercial rates of interest to offshore parent companies, and all paid for by the captive energy market.
Instead of mindlessly returning the surpluses as tax breaks for people who really don't need them, the Federal Government ought to invest surplus public money in endlessly sustainable power provision; and, at a cost, cost structure paradigm, that would physically encourage the mass migration of high tech manufacture to our shores? And in so doing, guaranteeing a future well beyond the current mineral/mining boom?
Moreover, each and every one of the privileged elite, would very likely prefer a sustainable future for their children or the children's children, than unneeded tax breaks.
Half of the current coal-fired pollution is generated in the transmission wires and or centralised power provision.
Should we change over to less polluting NG, we would reduce current pollution by around 40%; given, there is around 40% less carbon held in covalent bonds in NG, when compared to coal.
We could reduce that by half again, by the simple expediency of piping the gas directly to the household or consumer, and then producing all the power required and free hot water, by passing the gas through a ceramic fuel cell, when and as we need power.
We can also provide the same power utilising endlessly sustainable biogas! And for around a third of the current price of privately owned centralised power provision!
We must also consider nuclear power. Very safe new generation reactors could power our shipping and self defence bases.
Currently, knocking out a very few coal-fired power stations, would also knock out most of our communications and the transfer of critical self defence intell. As other posters will say, the status quo or simply doing nothing is not an option!
Rhrosty.