tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post886059652421686810..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The LFTR/Thorium ParadigmCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-68907919676658161852015-10-17T23:47:00.384-05:002015-10-17T23:47:00.384-05:00Trust "Anonymous" to know what noone els...Trust "Anonymous" to know what noone else knows! How dare he/she!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377409321014312277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-170784257575059292015-02-27T06:11:21.882-06:002015-02-27T06:11:21.882-06:00The third com anti-nuclear drive by. No evidence ...The third com anti-nuclear drive by. No evidence is provided to back up his clames. The writer claims to be an expert on nuclear technology, and yet he makes the tabsurd claim that AP-1000 reaCTORS WERE INVOLVED IN THE FUKUSHEMA ACCIDENT! The authos claims all sorts of problems for the lFTR, but supplies absolutely technical details. <br />Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-42014754184387240202015-02-26T18:54:53.718-06:002015-02-26T18:54:53.718-06:00Dear Reader
I used to be proponent of LFTR and am...Dear Reader<br /><br />I used to be proponent of LFTR and am well acquainted with the work of Flibe, ORNL, CNRS and others. I have read their reports, patent literature and such like. LFTR is a bad idea and should not be pursued. Conventional renewables are a much better prospect in the near term, with LENR in the longer term.<br /><br />LFTR have many very dangerous failure modes, just like the AP1000 at Fukushima Dai'ichi which was thought to be invincible. Clearing up after a major LFTR accident with highly radiologically "hot" materials (hard Gamma emitter)would be an absolute nightmare. From conventional nuclear, we were promised "... electricity too cheap to meter". The reality is that if one calculates the real environmental damage, including the waste generated from continuous reprocessing in a LFTR, the true economics (not those projected by proponents of LFTR) are highly unfavourable in comparison to conventional renewables. Germany is taking a very sensible approach in this way.<br /><br />Beware of eloquent LFTR salesmen who promise Throium LFTR to be the solution to all energy problems. LFTR's have a whole set of ghastly problems associated with their operation, and there is a need to be realistic. Most of the LFTR designs that I have recently seen proposed are truly dreadful; they can be improved upon very considerably, so we have multiple research groups around the World making the same terrible mistakes in their LFTR designs, and burdening the World with yet more radioactive waste in the process. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-53808210751439932262014-01-29T11:39:58.332-06:002014-01-29T11:39:58.332-06:00Is one pound of Thorium equivalent to 20 tons of c...Is one pound of Thorium equivalent to 20 tons of coal or rather 20000 tons? Freaky Froghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14690774495774127381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-75384159380263754692013-12-31T11:14:35.073-06:002013-12-31T11:14:35.073-06:00Charles - thank you for reposting this. I haven...Charles - thank you for reposting this. I haven't gone through all your 'back issues'. This one is definitely a gem. I'm still visiting because I always need to learn more. Please continue your great work.Andrew Jaremkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781060305332803073noreply@blogger.com