I am replying to your latest comment but it might have been more appropriate to your previous response in which your frustration with progressing the IFR technology in the States was beginning to show.

I was discussing the sustainability of the energy available from nuclear fission with David MacKay this morning. In his book, he arrives at much lower amount of (1000 year)sustainable energy/person/day than has often been claimed on this site. However, he did qualify his comments by stating the quantity of uranium reserves he was basing his data on. He also said that, because of there being no current uranium shortage, the land reserves that could come onstream economically in the future could well be 1000 times greater than the number that his calculations were based on. I am also not sure that he was taking existing stockpiles of “radioactive waste” into account. He certainly lamented the fact that, despite the UK sitting on many tonnes of plutonium, its government had recently cut back its contributions to the consortium of nations funding 4th generation fission research, making it unlikely that UK researchers would any longer have the opportunity to work in this area.

This is all a preamble to my request that you provide detailed figures that underpin the sustainability estimates pertaining to IFR technology. I have to make the terrible confession that I have not read your book and that the answers I seek may already be there. If so, tell me and I’ll get it.

Unfortunately, some have promoted the IFR as a perpetual motion machine and give the impression that a breeder reactor can produce all the energy we need while simultaneously recreating its supplies with no further inputs

I was involved in a complex project with GE some years ago and visited their R&D facility in Schenectady, NY. What a place. As one entered the building, there were many photographs on a large wall. The top row were all Nobel Prize winners, then those who had received a minimum number of patents (say 50), then a row with fewer patents, etc. The bottom row had a 10 patent minimum. Many of the photos were old as I remember. Seems that GE’s R&D heyday was similar to Bell Labs’.

I strongly agree with the process as you’ve laid it out. The transition of technology from science to engineering is a complicated one that certainly can not be scheduled up until the later stages (D2+) at best. In the right environment and with the right management – I can’t imagine a better place to work.

Thorium generally, see the link in the right sidebar, it’s actively discussed. With some great pictures of a modern Stonehenge (abandoned partly built reactor site) http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

Pebble bed: you’d have to ask them, or their investors, why not. The website you link to currently says:

“Johannesburg’s Business Report says the pebble bed modular reactor project is running out of cash. It’s initial goals may have to be redirected…. to use its heat directly … gasoline from coal … for extracting oil from the Canadian tar sands. Hyperion Power is also exploring this use for its uranium hydride reactor technology….

Many advantages: http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com/

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004841.html

OR Wiki has a good overview

The PRISM is ready to be built. But it’s going to take some decisive politicians to get the thing done. Are we getting close? A confluence of factors (Yucca Mountain, global warming, disarmament leading to lots of Pu being available) will hopefully be sufficient to get them off the dime, but I’m not holding my breath. At this point it looks more likely that the PRISM will end up being built outside the States first due to political inertia. I could go on and on about this, believe me, but for reasons of political discretion I must refrain.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.homans.html

“… Henry Waxman’s climate change bill won’t make it into law this year. That’s why he’s the right guy for the job….”