On 01/09/14 01:59, Johny B Good wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 02:45:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 31/08/14 02:03, Johny B Good wrote:


Suggesting that fossil fuelled power stations (let alone Nuclear) can
be replaced with 'Green Power' is simply an impractical Pipe Dream.

Agreed BUT you are not 100% right that civil reactors can produce
weapons garde plutonium - thats better produced in a rather different
reactor altogether.

True enough but the uranium/plutonium solid fuelled designs for civil
reactors were simply modifications based on the 'Plutonium Factory'
designs. IOW, they had a cold war legacy.


Not to say that there wasnt a big link up between civil and military
nuclear power.

Also Thorium is not the godsend some claim it to be. Its still got lots
of nasty by products that need to be dealt with and the breeder reactor
itself is more expensive.

I think you might change your mind if you can spare the 2 hours to
view this video presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P9M__yYbsZ4

I'm naturally assuming you haven't seen any of this material going by
that response.


The good news is that nuclear power is an about 1000 times safer than
the greens think it is, so re-education and rationalisation of risk could
make it very much cheaper than it is.

And that's true for all the existing reactors based on designs
derived from technology with a cold war legacy. The risks could
ultimately become another 3 orders of magnitude safer again with a
mature LFTR technologically based design of reactor.


Thus proving you haven't understood a single word....



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll