"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2014 20:38, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 21/01/2014 06:57, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2014 19:28, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/01/2014 10:47, harryagain wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:


"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote:

High prices were neccessary to get the industry started.

The payments were always going to be reduced once the proles
could
see
the advantages.

You could say exactly the same about the nuclear power
industry -
the
one that supplies us with cheap, reliable, safe energy.

Only it's not cheap.
The taxpayer is paying/will have to pay forever the cost of
storing
nuclear
waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...ste_management

Other countries have realised this, but not our numpty
government.

There's waste, and then there's waste.

Fly ash from coal-fired stations is radioactive, but isn't treated
as
hazardous, whereas if it came from a nuclear site the same level
of
activity would require stringent controls.

Nuclear waste can be burnt in power-generating reactors designed
for
the task.


Fiction.

http://transatomicpower.com/products.php

Ve-ery interesting.
And where exactly is this wonderful device located?

Wel f***k me. Another pie-in-the-sky that doesn't exist.
More nuclear industry bull****.

You are very credulous.


They have been reprocessing used fuel at Sellafield and other places
for
many decades now. They extract plutonium and other radioactive
isotopes
from used fuel rods and turn it into MOX fuel to be used in the 30
reactors that are currently using it in Europe, with another 20
licenced
to do so.

That's right. They separate usful fuel from the dross.
But the dross remains.
(The dross is what we are discussing)

Actually its not. What you think of of waste, is "spent" fuel. That
still
in reality has most of its fuel remaining. Liquid salt reactors will not
encounter the problem in the first place since the fuel cycle is a
continuous process. (and before you claim this is "pie in the sky"
consider that the oak ridge reactor ran sucessfully for many years, and
that the Chinese are building at least 5 new ones as we speak).

Pie in the sky again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_...hinese_project
Decades away.

"The proposed completion date for a test 2 MW pebble-bed solid thorium and
molten salt cooled reactor has been delayed from 2015 to 2017"

Given its 2014 you might want to look up "decades" in a dictionary.


The toy one. Experimental.
At this stage they may likely come to the same conclusion as the USA, UK and
Germans that it is not viable