Better yet, making it explicit blows the minds of those mindless sun worshippers who think the uncontrolled unshielded thermonuclear reactor in our sky is an omnipotent deity. Even THEY possess the two brain cells it takes to know supernovae are far, FAR more powerful.

Maybe you could convert a few of those nutters to worship of nuclear fission. It wouldn’t be quite as insane as worshipping sunlight. After all, life CAN exist without sunlight in geothermal vents. Life CANNOT exist without heavy metals and geothermal activity powered by radioactive decay.

One of them is that uranium-based SNF needs to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. Non-reprocessed fuel – maybe, but the thorium cycle assumes reprocessing, so it’s comparing apples to oranges.

I think both IFR and LFTR can solve the energy problem. IFR’s advantage is that most of the research is done and there is considerable experience in operating similar designs (about 200 reactor years), while LFTR can be simpler and more reliable.

(I’m behind on threads, sorry if someone else has posted this already)

On thorium refits to current reactors, basically, as a half-measure that might work economically

While this is true, a NPP does not aerosolize its radioactive waste into the atmosphere as a routine part of its operation. At any rate the real point is that there is a double standard at work here.

Another useful comparison is that dirt (more precisely, the 2.8ppm of uranium in it) contains 7 times more thermal energy than coal, by weight.

React 1 gram of uranium in an IFR producing 1 gram of nuclear waste.

Burn 5 tonnes of coal in a conventional plant and produce between 500 and 5000% more nuclear waste.

1. On a per watt basis it produces between 80 to 98% less nuclear waste than a coal fired plant.

2. It can be fueled using existing stockpiles of nuclear waste and convert long term waste into short term waste.

3. It can displace existing nuclear power station technology and use 99% less uranium for the same electricity output.

Commercialisation of this technology effectively has a negative nuclear footprint and a negative carbon footprint because that would be the net effect.

I realise this is singing to the choir.

The comparison to coal … it should finish the debate. But it won’t.

We agree that it won’t finish the debate, but I don’t agree that it should. I say the comparison with coal is the wrong one, and plays into the natgas interests’ hands, especially the natgas royalty interests’ hand. They hate coal too, because it is too cheap and brings in too little for them.

They are not the natgas companies. Interests, not companies. Vital distinction. Absolutely vital. People are dying as we speak because confusion has successfully been sown on this point.

(How fire can be domesticated)

To the point where it would be a violation of any nuclear power plants license to have a coal fire burning inside the fence.

LNT notwithstanding, look closely at radiation release laws and regulations, and you will find coal specifically exempted.

GRLC, yes, it should finish the debate. But it won’t.

… 5,000,000 tonnes of coal will contain about 5 to 50 tonnes of uranium.

In short both solutions entail the handling of about the same amount of uranium.

John D Morgan, on December 15th, 2009 at 21.38 Said:

Terje, that right there should finish the argument.

Not with those who, quite truthfully, can say they hate coal. They love it when nuclear advocates offer a coal-vs.-uranium choice. There’s an earnest, long-winded nuclear advocate over at RealClimate who always does this. No-one says boo. But when I drop by and point out that people who profit from natural gas through the taxes it pays are the heart and soul of the antinuclear lobby, that is when someone always says, do we have to have this debate here!?

… Some of the mass is converted to energy. I think 1 ton actually equals .92 tons of SNF.

0.999 in a complete burner, 0.99995 or so in today’s burners of low-enriched U, 0.99999 in a CANDU.

Spent fuel that has produced more energy per pound is proportionally more radioactive.

(How fire can be domesticated)