I bring your attention to this awesome technology that can provide humanity with clean, safe and abundant power for millenias to come. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor Some advantages of LFTR: And this picture says it all: Why the hell have we stopped researching this in the 70s?? We could have plentiful cheap energy, as well as far less CO2 emissions and oil addiction now. This needs to be funded now, not expensive renewables or fusion which is always 20 years in the future.
This was not a technological decision. It was a political decision, as far as I know. Ludwik Kowalski .
Research into Generation IV reactors never really stopped, there's just been little interest in deploying them because of the extreme cost. There's been no interest among utility companies for nuclear power in general--let alone experimental nuclear power--and the government has pulled funding as a result. No one is standing in the way of advanced nuclear reactors, but no one is particularly interested in building them. If you would like to know what the US government is currently doing with regard to Gen IV research, check out DOE's page on the subject. http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html Right now there seems to be more interest in Gen IV reactors for small scale deployment in remote areas or as part of a community energy development objective.
More like an economic decision. Coal and natural gas are way less expensive if the government does nothing to push the cost of externalities back onto the operator.
I think he referred to stopping of the MSR program at Oak Ridge and choosing to develop liquid metal cooled fast breerers instead. It was done because Weinberg, leader of the MSR research program, criticised safety of LWRs, and advocated fast development of the MSR alternative, which made him disliked by people with LWR interests. Of course, the result of LMCFBR program, Integral fast reactor, was also very promising, but it then fell victim to general antinuclear fear-mongering in the 90s. But if one has to objectively evaluate the technology, then choosing LMCFBRs over MSRs was not a good decision at the time, from technological and economic standpoint.
I think you're probably reading far too much into this. Especially if you start calling on "general antinuclear fearmongering" as part of your explanation. There's never been a consistent general opinion regarding nuclear power. It's always varied by region. Even if the folks in California develop a case of NIMBY, that's not true for the folks in the southeast. In general, personal conflicts and failings have more to do with decisions like this than shadowy "interests" guiding policy behind the scenes.
My recollection is that the decision was to stop developing all breeders, not just one of kind of them, for the anti-proliferation reason. By the way, another nuclear "clean energy" drama is developing. Follow this link. Rossi's claim is that the nuclear fuel is Ni and the nuclear ash is Cu. And that no dangerous radiation is produced. Ludwik Kowalski . http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416
I like that Australia has 40% of the world's thorium. We're gonna be the next Middle East, but without the bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy religious idiots.
One of the advantages of this sort of reactor is that you don't need a whole lot of fuel to make it work. This is a bad deal for Australia, which is already providing so much of the world's Uranium. Though Australia is around a quarter of the world's Thorium reserve, IIRC. The US has somewhat more than Australia, and India has about the same as Australia.
Yes, but proliferation concerns aren't exactly fearmongering. It's a valid point. Increasing the number of reactors that produce fissile materials usable for weapons is a real concern, unlike most nuclear scare tactics.
I dont think its a concern in states that already have nuclear weapons, discontinuing the development of breeders in such countries is pointless. Besides, LFTR breeder is more proliferation resistant than current LWRs. Not all breeders are the same.
Sure it is; there is long-term regulatory effort involved in making sure the material is accounted for. If you need a blatantly evident example of this, consider the release of nuclear materials that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is a risk that the materials might simply be sold; and then a further risk that they might be transported illegally and unsafely. This regulatory burden is a cost that must be considered with any nuclear reactors that create fissile material useful for weapons. It's not a deal-breaker, but the cost must be factored into the economic decision. I am not arguing against LFTR on any basis but the economics of it. Nuclear power in general, and experimental Gen IV nuclear power in particular, is not economically sound without a change in the regulatory environment. Nothing is blocking nuclear power but the economics of nuclear power (seriously, the environmental lobby is not strong enough to block action by the electrical industry--the environmentalists lose more battles than they win). The only way nuclear power will ever make sense is if the country adopts policies that force the cost of energy-related externalities back onto their producers. Otherwise it just makes no sense.
