On 23/01/2014 19:04, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2014 11:01, harryagain wrote:
"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

The US knows its viable - they ran one for years. They closed it in
preference for U based reactors because there was no weapons spin off from
the Th based one, and ICBMs had made the original USAF requirement for a
nuclear powered bomber redundant. It was simply a decision about how best
to direct limited resources into developments that would yield power and
weapons grade fissile material.

Who gives a toss what the Germans think, they are still living in cloud
cookoo land thinking they can cope without their nuclear plant, as they
buy ever more nuclear generated electricity from France, and scrabble to
get more coal plant into action to compensate for their folly.

As for the UK, you have to wonder at the logic of some of our greeny
friends... now what was the quote from George Monbiot about conversation
with Caroline Lucas:

"Last week I argued about these issues with Caroline Lucas. She is one of
my heroes, and the best thing to have happened to parliament since time
immemorial. But this doesn't mean that she can't be wildly illogical when
she chooses. When I raised the issue of the feed-in tariff, she pointed
out that the difference between subsidising nuclear power and subsidising
solar power is that nuclear is a mature technology and solar is not. In
that case, I asked, would she support research into thorium reactors,
which could provide a much safer and cheaper means of producing nuclear
power? No, she told me, because thorium reactors are not a proven
technology. Words fail me."

They have been proved to be non-viable.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever for that claim?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/