|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:40 PM Original message |
A different nuclear viewpoint. Who's open to thorium-fueled reactors? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:43 PM Response to Original message |
1. Not me - not with my tax $$$ |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cleita (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:45 PM Response to Reply #1 |
4. Mine either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Teaser (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:47 PM Response to Reply #4 |
8. this isn't fusion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cleita (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:52 PM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Then what is it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:54 PM Original message |
Nuclear fission at atmospheric pressure in a molten salt that freezes if breached... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cleita (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:58 PM Response to Original message |
18. I'll bet it does. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:31 AM Response to Reply #18 |
29. Because the nuclear power industry was built on the back of the nuclear weapons industry... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:35 AM Response to Reply #18 |
32. The DOE was very interest in Thorium. The DOD wanted bombs. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:53 PM Response to Reply #1 |
11. Any reason? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:58 PM Response to Reply #11 |
17. There are better more advanced alternatives - efficiency & renewables |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:31 AM Response to Reply #17 |
30. Fair enough. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Teaser (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:45 PM Response to Original message |
2. I can be sold on it but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:47 PM Response to Reply #2 |
7. I'm with you - I'd need to be convinced its safe. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
notesdev (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:45 PM Response to Original message |
3. Me, big time |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Teaser (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:46 PM Response to Original message |
5. What's the Energy Return on Investment? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:53 PM Response to Reply #5 |
12. I'm not sure. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
notesdev (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:54 PM Response to Reply #5 |
13. ridiculously good |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:55 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. I think you're right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:40 AM Response to Reply #5 |
34. EROEI for uranium is around 500*, thorium is 250 times more efficient. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dappleganger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:47 PM Response to Original message |
6. I don't think that now's a good time for this discussion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
k2qb3 (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:53 PM Response to Reply #6 |
10. I'm very interested in Thorium in particular... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:55 PM Response to Original message |
14. Nope - it's a bunch of hype. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Teaser (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:03 AM Response to Reply #14 |
21. data? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:02 AM Response to Reply #21 |
40. I've asked before, bunch of empty words. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:34 AM Response to Reply #21 |
43. See reports by MIT and IEER and others |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CJvR (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:52 PM Response to Reply #43 |
48. Odd thing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Mar-14-11 11:58 PM Response to Original message |
16. First of all, why bother, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:06 AM Response to Reply #16 |
23. The waste problem is far smaller with thorium reactors. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:10 AM Response to Reply #23 |
26. Yes, it is still an issue, and a still a fairly substantial issue, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:33 AM Response to Reply #16 |
31. Thorium reactors and integral fast reactors burn waste. We owe it to future generations to... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:36 AM Response to Reply #31 |
33. What, so only our great, great grandchildren have to worry about it, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:43 AM Response to Reply #33 |
36. Wait, why bother? 3-4 generations vs 2000+ generations? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:55 AM Response to Reply #36 |
38. So those reactors create more waste, which will need to be burned, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:02 AM Response to Reply #38 |
39. No, you don't understand at all, you really don't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jack_DeLeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:02 AM Response to Original message |
19. I'd support it... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ljm2002 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:02 AM Response to Original message |
20. Why? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:03 AM Response to Original message |
22. LFTRs have their own set of problems. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jp11 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:07 AM Response to Original message |
24. I am, too late to get into reading all this but certainly sounds promising if there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:18 PM Response to Reply #24 |
47. Here's a good site to look at. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Thegonagle (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 12:08 AM Response to Original message |
25. You know, on a night like tonight, all I can think is... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SolutionisSolidarity (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:18 AM Response to Original message |
27. We need to shut down these old reactors. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
backscatter712 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:51 PM Response to Reply #27 |
46. I'm doubting that "Cobalt Thorium G" is a real substance. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eridani (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:24 AM Response to Original message |
28. Possible--just not anywhere NEAR earthquake faults n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:40 AM Response to Original message |
35. I don't think it's quite ready for wide scale deployment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 01:45 AM Response to Reply #35 |
37. It's almost entirely conceptual and even the biggest LFTR advocates see it 20+ years out... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Xithras (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 09:31 AM Response to Reply #37 |
45. I was thinking about thorium reactors in general, and not LFTR in particular. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:03 AM Response to Original message |
41. The current reactors were sold as failsafe, too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 02:30 AM Response to Reply #41 |
42. They had three backups, all three failed. They did fail to engineer for a massive tsunami... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jberryhill (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-16-11 12:54 PM Response to Reply #42 |
49. Active backup is NOT failsafe design |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
diane in sf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-11 05:09 AM Response to Original message |
44. No thank you, still too expensive and relatively dangerous compared to efficiency and renewables. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:31 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC