I am currently watching a video lecture by William Tucker posted by Jason of Pro-Nuclear Democrats. Jason is new to the nuclear blogging game, and he is doing a bang up job with his new, creative, and interesting materials. Rod Adams offers a review of last night's CNBC's program "The Nuclear Option". Those who are in the know are aware that the real action in Energy from Thorium is on the discussion pages. There Robert Hargraves discusses a new set of materials titled "Aim High, LFTR energy cheaper than from coal". This is a lecture with Power Point, and Robert provides links to a really terrific power point presentation, that also comes in pdf format, with further links to handouts and an audio of the Hargraves lecture. Everyone who has looked at this material are absolutely thrilled. Hargraves shares the vision that both Kirk Sorensen and I have, of factory built small LFTRs producing power all over the country, and indeed all over the world.
Poet-Engineer recently offered on The Oil Drum an interesting discussion of the use of gas turbines to generate electricity with Generation IV reactors. The discussion that followed Poet-Engineer's essay is both lively and well informed by Oil Drum standards.
From the Amory Lovins - Joe Romm wackos at Gristmill, we have Kate Sheppard reviewing an anti-nuclear anti-McCain report from Environment America. Needless to say, Sheppard faileds to notice that the Environmental America report contained a number of obvious flaws. However, Rod Adams, David Bradish, and vakibs offer well thought responses.
A pro-nuclear blog has popped up on the barackobama.com. Posters include Jason of Pro-Nuclear Democrats and Marcel F. Williams of the New Papyrus Magazine. Yesterday saw a blast from the past with redoubtable MSR supporter Bruce Hoglund offering a post on why the Molten Salt Reactor, is the "Democrat's Reactor". Bruce no doubt is trying to win over Democrats to the cause, but his argument is somewhat flawed. Bruce, does not include the name of Jimmy Carter anywhere in his essay.
I am, of course continuing my series on nuclear safety, with a somewhat in depth look at defenses in depth. My last essay looked at the astonishing safety of the ESBWR, while a review of the safety of the Pebble Bed Reactor and the LFTR are in the offing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Nuclear Green
Posts
Comments
Some neat videos
| Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||
6 comments:
Thanks for the kudos Charles! I've really enjoyed your past few articles about nuclear safety. I think it would have been interesting to also compare the likelihood of winning the lotto (1 in 50 million odds)and the chances of winning it in X number of years for X plays per week. I've heard figures which say a person could win with a certain number of plays once every 8000 years, thus the chance of an ESBWR meltdown is 3,625 times greater of a lotto winning once every 8000 years.
The Reid-Hatch Thorium bill got mentioned in U.S. News and World report. No mention of the LFTR, unfortunately.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/10/14/some-nuclear-energy-backers-say-uranium-alternative-could-be-a-magic-bullet.html
The original posting stated:
Yesterday saw a blast from the past with redoubtable MSR supporter Bruce Hoglund offering a post on why the Molten Salt Reactor, is the "Democrat's Reactor".
I think what Mr Hoglund is trying to do is to get a group of people to change their thinking about nuclear energy by showing that there are some "new" (more like not well known) ideas available.
There is more than enough blame to go around for both parties. The Republicans have not continued funding for advanced reactor development. Bill Clinton shut down the IRF project in the middle of its work.
As a conservative guy, I view abundant, clean and inexpensive energy as beyond politics. I think we should roll up our sleeves and do serious work on several designs (LFTR being one).
There no doubt are legitimate political differences about the exact path to the goal, but I don't think the goal itself belongs to either party.
Bruce Hoglund was an internet advocate of the MSR during the 1990's, but he has not been heard from lately, hence my "blast from the past," comment. I do not object to other reactor designs, as you notice I have complimented the safety of both the ESBWR and the PBR. Both of these reactors have significant limitations due to their choice of nuclear fuel - uranium - and the form of their fuel - solid rather than liquid.
Charles Barton said:
I do not object to other reactor designs, as you notice I have complimented the safety of both the ESBWR and the PBR. Both of these reactors have significant limitations due to their choice of nuclear fuel - uranium - and the form of their fuel - solid rather than liquid.
Yes, I have noticed your positive discussion of other reactors.
I think that the LFTR is a really good concept, and should be used to replace uranium-fueled light water reactors over time. But I like to have several options available - don't put all your eggs in one basket.
In addition, we should be doing something more constructive with the slightly used fuel from light water reactors than sticking it in an expensive hole in the ground under Yucca Mountain. At a minimum we need to burn actinides. And it sure would be nice to burn up all that unused U238 (including the depleted uranium from the enrichment plants), though it really isn't that hazadous. We have a bunch of LWRs around, and will have for quite some time, so it would be really nice to use their "exhaust", and generate a lot of electricity or process heat as a result. This is the second reason why I would like to see several reactor development projects going.
Dond I have advocated burning "spent nuclear fuels" in other reactors.
Post a Comment