Thoughts on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:20 am

Kite, I've said dozens of times I am very pro-nuclear. I'm not condemning anything. Likewise I was completely explicit that Hanford is a unique situation. However, everything I said is true, including the specific numbers I used.

It's because of people like you, Kite; who are so willing to pretend fission has no troubles or hidden costs, that people don't respect the pro-nuclear position. It is dishonest to pretend for example that fission is the cheapest form of electrical power, when in fact it is the most expensive. Fission can only compete with other power sources when one removes the cost of waste handling from the equation, as we do when we merely store the stuff on site until the day when our grandchildren will have to cope with the problem.

Hidden costs are still costs, and fission is neither the demon nor the panacea people pretend.

ltgbrown · Post by **ltgbrown** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:04 am

Speaking of hidden costs, how about the hidden costs of fossil fuels in the form of climate change? National security expenditures?

Now begin the visceral climate change argument.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:18 pm

GIThruster wrote: Hidden costs are still costs, and fission is neither the demon nor the panacea people pretend.

True, but one should be truthful about which costs are technically mandated and which are political. You seem to confuse the two and act as if they are all technical.

We can find technical solutions to political problems if needed, but they tend to be expensive because the folks making the political issue don't WANT a solution so they keep changing the problem statement.

The NRC policy is that a NPP can present no more than 1/1000th the total risk to the public. Since it seems that Fukushima, AFTER the "disaster" does not violate that risk, where is the disaster?

If you are so "pro" nuke, please quit echoing the mantras of the antis with every breath. Call them on their lies. Their lies are legion. Stop adding to their legion. Stop being a useful idiot.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:15 pm

You're drawing a distinction between various kinds of costs that is useless and irrelevant, and likewise pretty obviously bogus. We are not nor have we ever paid the costs of long term storage of nuclear waste. It is sitting on or in the ground in short term only storage facilities and there is no plan what to do with it. This has been going on for decades.

It's no wonder the anti-nuke people get so much traction when people like you routinely misrepresent the facts and ignore the costs we are passing on to future generations.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:14 pm

GIThruster wrote:You're drawing a distinction between various kinds of costs that is useless and irrelevant, and likewise pretty obviously bogus. We are not nor have we ever paid the costs of long term storage of nuclear waste. Absurd. we've paid it, probably twice over. long term storage facilities have been built. then we let them sit idle for political reasons. the FedGov has collected the disposal fees for decades. too bad they haven't done anything productive with them. but it is a political matter, not a technical one. It is sitting on or in the ground in short term only storage facilities and there is no plan what to do with it. This has been going on for decades. As I said, a political problem. The answer is easy. LFTRs.

It's no wonder the anti-nuke people get so much traction when people like you routinely misrepresent the facts and ignore the costs we are passing on to future generations. The costs are due to politics, nothing else. One change in policy would resolve the issue. End the effective ban on reprocessing.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:19 pm

More obviously and stupidly wrong nonsense from Kite. As I just noted, the vast majority of waste is water, and the solutions you're proposing don't treat with water.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:24 pm

Radioactive H2O? Or radioactive stuff in the plain old H2O? Makes a big difference.

Or are you switching tracks in mid chug again? Hard to keep up with your flailing.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:12 am

Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Big Deal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... -big-deal/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:51 am

ltgbrown wrote:Speaking of hidden costs, how about the hidden costs of fossil fuels in the form of climate change? National security expenditures?

Now begin the visceral climate change argument.

The climate hasn't been changing for 16 years. Maybe CO2 is not the problem.

And don't forget to the increase in plant productivity.

By about 2020 or 2025 the US will be the largest producer of oil in the world. So why do we protect ME oil? To keep the rest of the world from starting wars over it. General wars are bad for business.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:00 am

GIThruster wrote:More obviously and stupidly wrong nonsense from Kite.

In keeping with the spirit of your post:

You can trust everything GIT says. His urine has been tested and approved by the US Government. The Government asks and GIT drops trou. He is so good at it that he likes to brag about it.

======

You know GIT I can understand frustration. I can understand flaming (I'm not above it myself - see above). But you might want to consider toning it down some. In every venue and every comment? Like you are the only one with a brain here?

Maybe you are over invested.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:47 am

I do note that he failed to answer my question about radioactive water.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:43 pm

I didn't answer you because you're obviously not engaged in a useful or adult manner. You know the radionuclides are in the water, not that the water is radioactive, and you know that it is much too expensive to remove them for that to be a legitimate option. The water is waste, and will remain so, and it cannot be turned into fuel. Vitrification doesn't work properly. Underground storage is a flawed solution because it is premised on the notion "out of sight is out of mind" and that is just not gonna fly. These wastes require active monitoring and given this, the reasons to put them all underground disappear.

The simple fact is, we have millions of tons of nuclear waste spread all over this country, all requiring armed guards to see it doesn't fall into the hands of islamo-fascists who would turn it into a dirty bomb or some such. You can pretend the issue is not a real one all you want--until someone describes what it would be like for a dirty bomb to go off in lower Manhattan. Then suddenly your assurances, and vacant arguments don't mean much.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:53 pm

KitemanSA wrote:I do note that he failed to answer my question about radioactive water.

That's really broad question to ask, all water has some natural low level radioactivity but the japan incident is contamination of water. Small particles and elements like caesium will actually dissolve in water very readily, so will the iodine . Those can be separated out using ion exchange resins. In fact, when people operate power stations, they regularly filter the water which is used in the cooling cycles or the heat transfer cycles with these resins and then those resins form part of our nuclear waste.
Does that help?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:21 pm

Pb1,
Thank you for your response. I goaded him into one also. I had been wondering if he knew what you do.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:51 pm

GIThruster wrote:I didn't answer you because you're obviously not engaged in a useful or adult manner. You know the radionuclides are in the water, not that the water is radioactive, (yes, I knew, I was wondering if you did) and you know that it is much too expensive to remove them for that to be a legitimate option. Questionable. If it is too disperse to be practical, it is probable too low level to be a problem. The water is waste, and will remain so, and it cannot be turned into fuel. No, the stuff in the water may be waste or may be resource, the water is just water. sounds like a fairly simple distillation unit and then dispersion of the distillate would get rid of many, if not most of those tons. Vitrification doesn't work properly. Underground storage is a flawed solution because it is premised on the notion "out of sight is out of mind" and that is just not gonna fly. These wastes require active monitoring and given this, the reasons to put them all underground disappear. Are you talking water here?

The simple fact is, we have millions of tons of nuclear waste spread all over this country, all requiring armed guards to see it doesn't fall into the hands of islamo-fascists who would turn it into a dirty bomb or some such. You can pretend the issue is not a real one all you want--until someone describes what it would be like for a dirty bomb to go off in lower Manhattan. Then suddenly your assurances, and vacant arguments don't mean much.

Wow, we've wandered far afield from C&F being non-events to what seems to be cleaning up after the military's Cold War weapons programs. Pick a topic and stick with it please. This jumping around is indicative of someone on the loosing side of a debate trying to deflect attention. To target the discussion a bit, the two worst incidents involving a commercial NPP were non-events in the grand scheme of tragedies. Spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive substances from commercial NPPs are only a problem due to politics. They are not a significant issue technically. Furthermore, what issue there are would be greatly alleviated by use of LFTRs instead of LWRs or HWRs. None of my comments apply to how well or poorly the military may have handled their radioactive materials.