lizawilson illustrates my point very well.

And while Max Green adjures Svenmark to curb a political allergy toward climate change, I must thank him for offering a reply to my OP but simultaneously must ask him to deal with his own allergy toward answering the questions therein

While the quest for information from a lay majority in society is treated with ignore, my suspicions are only increased with every instance. For the present, while this sorry condition persists, I will justifiably claim that the nuclear power industry and those who support it CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

They have done an execrable job of selling their industry to the public and maintained an adversarial attitude since inception.

I have perused the USA's DOE site online. It seemed sincere and impartial and that is absent from so many "experts" online who prefer to utter patronising noises to increase their mystique of being a repository of arcane secrets that a lay public is unfit to share.

For instance: Much is made of TMSRs, thorium molten salt reactors?
Q; What salt, of the many different kinds of salt, is used? Is it abundant in nature? Does it eventually degrade by use over time? What is the residue product? Does the thorium make it radioactive? Is the residue re-usable or a waste product? What kind of safe storage is required for the waste? Do you know of any other pertinent questions that should be asked? Has your answer been as complete and comprehensive as current knowledge allows?

A lay person may be able to seek all that information online, EXCEPT FOR THE LAST TWO QUESTIONS. But most of the lay public have not the time to satisfy their curiosity except for a weekly couple of hours browsing the internet and if the kids aren't monopolising the family computer.

The industry's PR reps reputations have demonstrated a contempt for public awareness and a genius for substituting word soup for informative content in news releases etc. Very few of the interested lay public have any confidence that they, or their bosses, would answer the last two questions honestly.

The MCSFR is the Molten CHLORIDE Salt FAST Reactor, it doesn't JUST burn Thorium (so please stop calling it a THORIUM reactor!), but also burns uranium, plutonium, waste and warheads, and it is the safest cheapest simplest breeder reactor concept out there. My understanding is the Chloride salts become radioactive but are endlessly recyclable. The fission product wastes are only extracted once every 40 years, which is an electro-chemical process that removes them from the salt and then the salts are reused.

The fission product wastes can be vitrified (melted down) into ceramic tablets that are like water proof bricks you can store in a bunker under the reactor-park and 300 years later are safe. It's only 1 golf ball sized piece of ceramic tablet per human lifetime of energy. It's NOT! A! PROBLEM!

As for the rest of Pogi's rant, Pogi seems to be under the assumption that just SNEERING at all the knowledge shared with Pogi is a logical response that somehow confirm's Pogi's original suspicions. But that's circular.

EG:
Attacker: Honestly Pogi, you've got to get over this fixation with your mother that you've repressed!
Pogi: But I don't have a fixation on my mother?
Attacker: Ah, but that just shows how repressed it is!

That's an example of what it's like to discuss nuclear power with Pogi. One answers Pogi's questions as best as one can as a lay person, but it all backfires and Pogi rejects it all with Bulverism.

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Max Green. I'm not the only skeptic and critic of nuclear power generation. my criticisms were legitimate, well attested and not denied by the industry. It can't deny them because it is standard practice.

It's a pity you're not mature enough to realise that my criticisms were not personal and always directed at the industry or an aspect thereof. That you thought it desirable to resort to the personal demonstrates quite clearly that fictional sarcasm is a poor choice of tactic in a vital and contentious issue such as this and allowing dudgeon to stain your attitude is never a welcomed substitute for eloquence.

Nevertheless, I genuinely hope that your solstice celebration was a very happy occasion for you and your family and that 2020 finds you ready and eager for its challenges and rewards.

Pogi, words words words! Let's cut to the chase.

You asked these questions.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20648#363592

I answered them. Breeder reactors get 60 to 90 TIMES the energy out of each bit of uranium than a normal once through reactor. Nuclear 'waste' is the SOLUTION to climate change, not a problem to be managed. The thorium and uranium goes into a nuclear power park, probably with 6 to 10 reactors in there and a police station as well (why not put all these government services together for extra security?), and then the uranium and thorium NEVER come out again. The vitrified ceramic nuclear waste bricks are buried in a bunker right under the reactor park. In 300 years they are safe!

Remember, it's ONLY 1.3 Olympic Pools of waste every 70 years for the WHOLE of Australia's 25 million people. It's only 1 golf ball per person lifetime. There's just no need to freak out about the final REAL nuclear waste, the fission products with all the actinides burned out. Once we've got 60 to 90 times the money out of the uranium, we'll have the money to vitrify the waste and deal with it once and for all!

We have a climate emergency. We need to be pumping MCSFR's off the production line ASAP. They provide abundant, RELIABLE BASELOAD POWER forever. It's time to get serious!