The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Clean electricity, cheap electricity, safe electricity > Comments

Clean electricity, cheap electricity, safe electricity : Comments

By Alex Goodwin, published 23/12/2009

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor can save on carbon emissions, produce electricity and desalinate water.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Fission in fast breeders like this one look like it will be a excellent solution one day. But that day looks like it will decades, if not centuries away. The cost of each of new plant design is measured in the billions, and the time to build it in decades. It is a unbelievably slow process.

Other technologies are far more nimble. Each iteration is dirt cheap and happens very quickly in comparison. They may be a bigger gamble, but we will know the answer sooner.

I'm with colinsett. If I were in government, I would not be throwing money at nuclear in preference to other technologies.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 24 December 2009 8:25:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no pretence to be a scientist. The author is obviously convinced that this is an answer to a maiden's prayer. Fine let us assume for the moment that he is right. Presumably therefore there will be no need for any government funding - the private sector will only be too happy to provide the funds. We will need them to come up with an acceptable proposal to dispose of the waste, again that is not a problem because it produces virtually no waste.
So let me see why have they not been built? The main reason is that private enterprise has seen it as a dubious economic proposition. The track record of the nuclear industry does not help - long on promises short on delivery.
Posted by BAYGON, Thursday, 24 December 2009 12:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator, congratulations on your willingness to learn - as Taswegian has mentioned, Prof. Brook and I differ in methods, not goals.

r stuart - the LFTR is NOT a fast spectrum reactor - the flouride does too much moderating for that. You also seem to have not read the evidence about 4-5 year construction times for PWR that I have provided links to. Accident or mendacious oversight?

colinsett - you conveniently forget to mention that in at least the US case (which I'm most familiar with), those subsidies (the bulk of which are and have been for military use and thus irrelevant to civil nuclear power) have been more than offset by the 1 mill/kWh charge for "spent" fuel disposal, fees to the regulator, and income, property and other taxes.

What sodium coolant?
Posted by Alex Goodwin, Thursday, 24 December 2009 5:14:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alex,

I would agree with Taswegian that Aus is too small to be able to afford to build or run experimental or one off sites. The singular success (low cost) of French program as compared to the US is the building of multiples proven reactor design which reduces the construction and running costs considerably.

Which technology is finally adopted depends largely on the fine details as to its total cost and the political impact. Thorium might be able to be sold as cleaner version of uranium (especially with respect to mining it)

However, given that the power distribution network is up to 50% of the cost of a new installation, and existing power stations have an abundance of clear land (which is hardly pristine), and a existing power generation that can be phased out as the new generation comes on line. There are huge cost benefits in this scenario.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 25 December 2009 6:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone,
What is the end result with the spent hardware is it to be stored somewhere? if so how?
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 26 December 2009 9:50:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I would agree with Taswegian that Aus is too small to be able to afford to build or run experimental or one off sites."

What nonsense. The process could be tested very cheaply, using existing infrastructure by converting an existing coal fired plant. I suspect the main hurdle is the huge fear politicians feel at the mention of anything nuclear.

But with nuclear power there is also the legacy of unfulfilled promise. If these high temperature fission reactors really do offer cheap power with little risk or waste, then surely there would be a strong commercial interest in developing the technology?
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 26 December 2009 11:02:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy