Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

When was the last time this happened in Denmark?

Monday 12 September 2011 17.11 BSTAn explosion at a French nuclear waste processing plant that killed one person and injured four others sparked fears of a radioactive leak on Monday.

An emergency safety cordon was thrown around the Marcoule nuclear site near Nimes in the south of France immediately after a furnace used to melt nuclear waste exploded and caused a fire. It was lifted later in the day after France's nuclear safety agency, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN), said there was no danger to the public.

Furnaces are common in Denmark and are found in many homes and commercial buildings. Furnaces in Denmark, if poorly maintained, are corroded or are damaged by previous incident are vulnerable to explosion and can cause serious harm or death to Danish people nearby.
 
From The Conversation:

George Dracoulis
Professor, Department of Nuclear Physics at Australian National University
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
George Dracoulis is a long-term member of the Department of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University. His research area is in the field of nuclear structure physics and nuclear spectroscopy in which he holds several ARC grants


A good, balanced look at thorium, here's a few quotes I thought pertinent to this thread:

http://theconversation.edu.au/thoughts-from-a-thorium-symposium-4545

The MSR is an elegant and flexible system, but one, it must be remembered, that can also be used with uranium salts, as it was originally.

The last two of the above attributes are peculiar to thorium. First, the long-lived alpha-particle-emitters that are a problem in the long-term management of waste from uranium, are not produced from thorium. The waste is more radioactive but shorter-lived.

Second, in the thorium cycle, Uranium-233 is bred as the fissile material rather than Plutonium-239 – the favoured isotope for nuclear weapons. (Some would argue that Uranium-233 is still a proliferation risk.)

So where are all the molten-salt reactors?

MSRs are not currently available at an industrial scale, but test reactors with different configurations have operated for extended periods in the past.
But there are a number of technical challenges that have been encountered along the way.

One such challenge is that the hot beryllium and lithium “salts” – in which the fuel and heavy wastes are dissolved – are highly reactive and corrosive. Building a large-scale system that can operate reliably for decades is non-trivial. That said, many of the components have been the subject of extensive research programs.

At the “symposium”, the Czech consortium discussed their plan to construct a demonstration system on an existing nuclear reactor site. The system would be built some time after 2014 before proceeding to a small prototype (60 megawatts capacity) that would deliver electricity to the grid.

Whether that prototype system becomes a game-changer depends on many factors, not least of all the cost of deployment.

(...)

More egregious is the claim along the lines of: “all of the thorium can be used but only a fraction of uranium produces energy”. This is based on the erroneous comparison between the low abundance of the fissile isotope Uranium-235 in nature (only 0.7% of uranium is Uranium-235) with Thorium-232 (100% of natural thorium).

The correct comparison should be between Uranium-238, which is 99.3% abundant, and Thorium-232 which is 100% abundant. Both of these are so-called “fertile isotopes” from which one can breed fissionable material to produce energy. Sadly, this claim of “more energy per unit mass” was repeated by Federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson in his opening address at the symposium, and is widespread in media reports. Pity.
 
You're admitting you were wrong then about it being an untested unproven technology?

LOL, it IS an untested technology, that's the point of the article. There are significant technical challenges to overcome before liquid salt reactors become a commercial reality. You're being completely disingenuous as usual in trying to pretend otherwise. :D

The article is essentially saying the same thing as the report from the National Nuclear Lab in the UK. Experts agree, thorium is nowhere close to being a commercially viable alternative to anything.
 
Last edited:
Then there's Germany. The country that invented the most destructive 'isms of the 20th century,

For all that I'm with you on the German decision to move away from nuclear, I don't see how the quoted bit above adds anything whatsoever to the discussion.
 
bit_pattern, do you agree that nuclear power is safer than other forms of energy generation, as demonstrated by the statistics posted just upthread.
 
LOL, it IS an untested technology,

Completely false. Your own source posted above contradicts this.

There are significant technical challenges to overcome before liquid salt reactors become a commercial reality.

I never said there wasn't.

You're being completely disingenuous as usual in trying to pretend otherwise.

You have blatantly and deliberately lied repeatedly. You've put words in peoples mouths, built up straw men, openly stated a refusal to consider evidence that contradicted your position, all in a desperate effort to avoid... something... what, exactly I can't tell and your don't appear to want to let us know.

The article is essentially saying the same thing as the report from the National Nuclear Lab in the UK.

No, it doesn't. As I pointed out over and over again, the NNL report does not in any way shape or form mention or address liquid fueled reactor technology. What you get out of denying this, I dn't know.

Experts agree, thorium is nowhere close to being a commercially viable alternative to anything.

I never said it would be cheap. I never said it would be easy. What I have pointed out, is the undeniable fact that thorium and other fission technologies (before you try to misrepresent me again) are the only options that ever could be commercially viable.

Nuclear or climate change.

You may pick only one.
 
Possibly but I'm not discussing the safety aspect.

picture.php


Who was it that brought it up? :boggled:


Explosion at French nuclear waste plant
One worker reported dead in blast at Marcoule nuclear waste processing site in southern France

Kim Willsher in Paris

guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 September 2011 17.11 BSTAn explosion at a French nuclear waste processing plant that killed one person and injured four others sparked fears of a radioactive leak on Monday.
 
Last edited:
LOL, it IS an untested technology, that's the point of the article. There are significant technical challenges to overcome before liquid salt reactors become a commercial reality. You're being completely disingenuous as usual in trying to pretend otherwise. :D

The article is essentially saying the same thing as the report from the National Nuclear Lab in the UK. Experts agree, thorium is nowhere close to being a commercially viable alternative to anything.

I’ve had roughly the same discussion with him re: uranium is seawater. He seems to think that because someone ones extracted a few ponds of yellowcake from seawater under laboratory conditions we now have a million year supply of Uranium.

He simply doesn’t understand the distinction between theoretically possible vs practical and/or ready for large scale production.
 
You could be discuussing BP and renewables.

If that's what you think then you clearly don't understand the distinction between science and science fiction.

We know how to do renewables, there are no technology issues blocking them just as there are no technology issues blocking us from using standard nuclear reactor technology. Both, face a cost issue in that they simply cost more then coal or natural gas.

It's absolutely clear that if the cost of coal/natural gas had to factor the cost of CO2 into their price per MWh nuclear and renwables would both expand, but without government intervention the market would generally move towards wind and solar.
 
I’ve had roughly the same discussion with him re: uranium is seawater. He seems to think that because someone ones extracted a few ponds of yellowcake from seawater under laboratory conditions we now have a million year supply of Uranium.

He simply doesn’t understand the distinction between theoretically possible vs practical and/or ready for large scale production.

nor does s of t ever acknowledge that nuclear power has never existed without huge government subsidies.
 
wow....really??
can't read today?:rolleyes:

fact: nuclear power has always had huge government subsidies.

Isn't that true about all sources of energy that make up a meaningful percentage of current world energy consumption?

(that's actually meant as a real question, not a rhetorical one, I suspect it's true, but may be mistaken).

If you are saying that only to counter the point that renewables are given government subsidies, then I agree with your point. If you are saying it to suggest that nuclear is not a viable energy source in competition with other sources, I don't see how it follows.
 
wow....really??
can't read today?:rolleyes:

fact: nuclear power has always had huge government subsidies.

OK, but what does that mean? Space travel has always had huge government subsidies. Highways have always had huge government subsidies. I'm sure we can name hundreds more, then we can name projects that once were entirely government funded that are now privately funded.

I'm just curious what you think it all means in the context of the discussion.
 
OK, but what does that mean? Space travel has always had huge government subsidies. Highways have always had huge government subsidies. I'm sure we can name hundreds more, then we can name projects that once were entirely government funded that are now privately funded.

I'm just curious what you think it all means in the context of the discussion.

government services use public funds...highways and space travel included.
no secret there.
however, in the case of the happily dead bruce power reactor in alberta, we are talking about a private, for profit company.
that is the difference.
bruce power needs to make money for its shareholders, and the taxpayer would wind up footing a portion of that profit.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom