Plantagenet: What you say is essentially correct but only in reference to oxide reactors; which may only actually consume around 5% of their fissile material; leaving the rest to be disposed of or somehow reused in a FBR i.e.

Thorium on the other hand consumes around 95% of its fuel type, and the 5% waste left at the end of the process is far less toxic than that emanating from oxide reactors; and is eminently suitable as long life space batteries!

And recent advances have eliminated the need to fire up the thorium reactor with uranium, just a thorium isotope; called thorium 302, if memory serves.

Thorium just doesn't present with the spectre of a nuclear meltdown like Fukushima.

First the largest prototype is only 40 MW, and being small can be mass produced and trucked on site and ready to produce in just days?

And the are usually buried deep in bedrock to improve the normal safety factors.

They are 50's technology abandoned because there was no weapons spin off.

Thorium reactors can also be paralleled to increase output, should any industrial process or industrial estate require better than the usual 40 MW.

However, siting under the intended consumers, reduces the need to string wires, and that in turn dramatically reduces transmission line losses, and numerous power outages.

Therefore, thorium power is not only seriously cheaper, but arguably far more reliable as well; and just what we need on our defense bases/facilities.

And think, anything that can be transported as a wide load on the back of a truck, can probably be carried into some very remote communities on the back of a barge or perhaps hooked in on a Chinook?

And given that they consume so much of their total fuel, able to run for the term of their natural economic life, on a couple of dozen truckloads of fuel?

And as long as A points at G, we're never ever going to run out of fuel in my grandkids' lifetimes, we have so much of it!
Rhrosty.

I guess I'm a simple soul.

I have always wondered why all wastes, after some energy is extracted, aren't dumped back in the hole the stuff came from in the first place.

"its view of ever more energy and material consumption."

Noel, your comment actually suggests you think energy consumption is a bad thing.

The conversion of matter and energy into forms that improve the quality of our lives is something that every living thing does. In fact, you could argue it is what defines life as "living".

You seem to continue to argue that consumption of energy is a bad thing. If you want to ague against specific technologies, or propose better means of producing energy then do it, but your negative attitude to the existence of life itself does not make any sense.

I suppose your solution to air pollution is to tell people to stop breathing?

Hi Rhrosty

I'm sold! Can you please put me down for 3 thorium reactors, just the biggest currently available. Simply truck them over and drop them off in the deep bedrock holes that the public dug last Sunday in their burbs.

As these reactors are safe to place in country communities there's no reason why they'll be unsafe in city centers full of white people. And no need for environmental impact studies, security protection or any public consultation with the great unwashed.

The Federal Government has designated 3 nuclear zones for these test reactors on low rent sites in:

- Toorak (that is in Vic)

- Byron Bay (NSW) and

- Upper Yarralumla (ACT)

No opposition from the eco-terrorists or truck hijackers is anticipated.

The newly demoted Minister for the Environment, Happy Joe Poodle, said this morning:

"Like it, love it or lump it suckers".

Cheers

Pete

Nuclear terrorism - a problem for Japan today and Australia in coming years?

"...Japan is no more immune to nuclear terrorism than it was to a catastrophic reactor accident [which happened at Fukushima]. In this context, the combination of safety and security concerns represented by spent fuel pools at reactors is a critical variable in the risk profile arising from the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Japan’s choices have global significance for the threat of nuclear terrorism, and therefore demands serious consideration as part of a national and international risk-benefit assessment of the future evolution of nuclear power." see http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0de7e0e84dc3aff619f936a70&id=06f03f7a60&e=ae85b3aafb

All reactors produce some high level waste (such as at Lucas Heights) in fuel rod form requiring spent fuel pools to disperse the heat of the rods. Claims for future but not yet industrially developed reactors are about as useful as claiming rocket assisted aircraft (feasible) can solve some passenger airline problems.

I can't believe the Federal and State legislation bans NUCLEAR power because of radiation? Haven't they analysed how much radioactive material gets dumped into the air and rivers and groundwater and soil by burning COAL! At least nuclear waste is contained. At least they're watching nuclear waste like hawks. At least nuclear waste can be re-fissioned until it's 10% the original mass and then only has to be buried for around 500 years and then is safe!

But coal? Coal kills more people in a *week* when it goes *right* than the whole history of nuclear power going *wrong*!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Banning nuclear power because you're frightened of Chernobyl or Fukushima is like banning modern aviation because of your terror of the Hindenburg! It's that emotional, and about that rational as well! Modern reactors have passive safety systems Chernobyl couldn't dream of and Fukushima wasn't designed for. Homer Simpson couldn't break these!

Lastly, the Japanese could resettle most of Fukushima right now. Kerala India is 3 times as radioactive *naturally*!
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/five-surprising-public-health-facts-about-fukushima